there would be 18 members, 10 democrats, 2 from the administration; and 8 republicans. so in terms of members of congress, it would be even: 8 democrats, 8 republicans. they would have to be currently serving members of congress selected by the democrat and republican leader, the secretary of the treasury and one other administration official would serve representing the administration for a total of 18. bipartisan fiscal task force would provide broad coverage. everything would be on the table, entitle ments, spending and revenues all would be before them for a judgment on how we deal with the debt threat. the work of the fiscal task force would enjoy expedited

procedures, procedures that we have used before here to bring especially difficult issues to both the senate and the house. the recommendations would only be submitted after the 2010 election. there would be fast-track consideration of the proposal in the senate and the house. there would not be amendments. it would be an up or down vote. and the final vote would come before the end of the 111th congress. again, i want to emphasize, i am not proposing that we take action to raise revenue or cut spending in the midst of an economic downturn. that would and counterpro duckeddive. -- counterproductive. but we do need to face up to the long-term debt. the provisions that would come from any commission, i'm sure, would be ones that would be put in place over time.

that would be phased in, that would be cog an cog any glent c0 our economy be -- it would assure a bipartisan outcome. 14 of the 18 task force members would have to agree to the recommendations for it to come to a vote. and final passage would require super majorities, a 3/5th vote. and the president would have to sign. he would retain his full veto powers. mr. president, this approach has been criticized by both the left and the right. the left group of organizations banded together and say this kind of approach could lead to reductions in social security and medicare.

cuts in social security an medicare. i would simply say to them, look at where we are. look at where we are. social security and medicare are both cash negative today. the trustees of medicare say that medicare will go broke in eight years. social security will take somewhat longer. but both are on a path to insolvency if we fail to act. mr. president, it hasn't just been from the more liberal side of the spectrum that the criticism has come. also on the right. "the wall street journal," ran this editorial calling the debt reduction commission or the deficit commission a trap. they say it is a trap that will lead to higher taxes, to more revenue. so on the left and the right we

have those complaining that if you move forward to deal with the debt, you're going to make reductions in programs and you're goi i think that's undeniably the case. if you're going to deal with this debt threat, we are going to have to make changes in the spending prowewewewewe are goine changes in the revenue base of the country. i would suggest for those who are concerned about tax increases, the first place to get more revenue is not with the tax increase. the first place to get more revenue is to collect what's actually owed. if you examine the revenue streams of the united states, it jumps out at you. that we're collecting about 80% or even somewhat less than that of what's actually owed.he money that was actually owed under the

current rates, we'd be doing very well. we'd have offshore tax havens, abusive tax shelters, a tax gap, a difference between what's owed and what's paid and we have a tax system that is completely out of date. we have a tax system that was designed at a time we did not have to be worried about the competitive position of the united states. now we do. the world has changed and our revenue system has not kept pace. instead it is hemorrhaged with offshore tax havens costing us, according to the permanent subcommittee on investigations, over $100 billion a year in lost revenue. if anyone doubts a a pro-ration of offshore tax havens, i would ask them to google offshore hacks havens. we did that last year and got

over a million hits including my favorite, live offshore tax free by putting your funds in offshore tax havens. mr. president, the reality is this, with we have a dramatic imbalance between spending and revenue. the revenue is the green line, the spending is the red line. and look what's happened with the economic downturn. revenue is at its lowest point in 50 years as measured as a share of the economy. the revenue is less than 15% of the gross domestic product of the country. spending has skyrocketed to 26% of the gross domestic product of the country. you can see that is far higher than it has been going back 30 years. and, of course, we understand

why. in the middle of a sharp economic downturn, the automatic stablizers take effect, unemployment insurance, a whole series of other things to try to prevent an even steeper downturn. so spending goes up, revenue goes down. the deficit widen, the debt explodes and that would not be so troubling if the long-term trend didn't tell us that the debt will continue to grow from these already high levels. mr. president, the need for tax reform, i think, is clear. we have a tax system that is out of date and hurting u.s. competitiveness. as i mentioned we're hemorrhaging revenue to tax havens and abusive tax shelters. the alternative minimum tax problem threatens millions of middle-class taxpayers. something that was never intended. that cries out for reform.

these long-term imbalances must be addressed. and simplification and reform we know from experience can keep rates low and improve the efficiency of the system. mr. president, the arguments that i have advanced this morning are arguments that have now been endorsed by more and more budget experts as they look at the long-term threat to the country. alan greenspan, the former chairman of the federal reserve, said that the recommendations of senator gregg and senator conrad for a bipartisan fiscal task force is an excellent idea and that he hopes that we succeed. douglas holtz eaken, the chief economic adviser to senator mccain in his presidential bid said this in testimony before the senate budget committee just last year, i am a reluctant

convert. i have always felt this is congress's job and, quite frankly, it ought to just do it. that attitude has earned me no friends and gotten us no action. so i've come around to the point where i'm in favor of something that is a special legislative procedure to get this legislation in front of congress and passed. and mr. geithner, the secretary of the treasury said this in testimony before the budget committee last year, it is going to require a different approach if we're going to solve the long-term fiscal imbalance. it's going to require a fundamental change in approach because i don't see realistically how we're going to get there through the existing mechanisms. and david walker, the federal former head of the general indicating office, i think the regular order is dysfunctional as it relates to these types of issues. it is, quite frankly, understandable because you're talking about putting together a

package that crosses many different jurisdictions and the idea that that would end up emerging from the regular order i think is totally unrealistic. that is testimony before the budget committee in 2007 by the controller general. and leon panetta, the former chairman of the house budget committee, and the former chief of staff of president clinton, now the director of the c.i.a., said this in testimony before the senate budget committee. in response to the question shouldn't we rely on just the regular order, the normal committee process. his answer, it will never happen. the committees of jurisdiction will never take on the kind of challenges that are involved in this kind of effort. if you just leave them under their own jurisdiction, that will never happen. mr. president, it hasn't happened and i'm chairman of one of the committees.

i accept that the normal process is not going to deal with the threat of this magnitude. it is going to take all of us, democrats, republicans, congress, the administration working together to fashion a plan that deals with the long-term debt threat. that also deals with the short-term need to restore jobs, to restore economic growth and to build the economy. these things are not contradictory. they, in fact, are complementary. we must do both. we must restore economic growth and economic strength at the same time we must deal with the long-term debt threat. that is the proposal that senator gregg and i bring to the floor. we urge our colleagues to seriously consider what we have

offered. it has 35 cosponsors about evenly divided between republicans and democrats. and i know it's a tall order to get to 60 votes in the united states senate. it's especially hard when organizations on the left are opposing it and organizations on the right are opposin opposing r very different reasons. but this is a case of a challenge of the middle holding. that's been the great strength of america. our ability to take on tough challenges and meet them. whether it was world war i or world war ii, th the great depression, all of the challenges that this country has faced. over and over america has proven that it's up to the challenge. i believe we're up to this challenge as well. and i believe people working

together can come up with solutions that would be credible not only to markets in this country, but markets around the world that are beginning to wonder: does america have the ability to face up to the debt threat that overhangs the future economic strength of the country? mr. president, i appreciate this time. i thank the chairman for allowing this time and i know that senator gregg will be coming to the floor in about an hour for his presentation on the same subject. i thank the chair and yield the floor. senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, the senator from north dakota makes a very compelling case for fiscal discipline. he's been making this case for a good number of years. he's on the forefront of -- of urging us and the congress and

country to be more disciplined, to get in better control of these deficits. and i appreciate the work that the senator from north dakota. i might say that we have no disagreement whatsoever that we need to address our fiscal challenge. we totally agree. i think most members of this body. that's not the question, whether we address our fiscal challenge or not is not the issue. i want to get that off the table. we all know that we have a huge problem facing us and it must be dealt with. what we do disagree with is the process, it's how we address it. i have a lot more to say about that later today. i see the senator from arizona on the floor. he's been waiting very patiently. mr. conrad: could i call up the amendment? mr. baucus: certainly. mr. conrad: mr. president, i'd like to call up the conrad-gregg amendment. the presiding officer: is there an objection to setting aside the pending amendment?

without objection, so ordered. e clerk: the senator from north dakota, mr. conrad, for himself and mr. gregg, proposes an amendment number 3302. at the appropriate place insert the following: section bipartisan -- mr. conrad: mr. president, i ask that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. conrad: i would like tyke the opportu -- to take the opportunity -- mr. kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. i'lmr. kyl: i will have an opportunity to speak to the amendment. i will speak to the thune amendment which i understand this we may be voting on as early as this afternoon. i want to make it clear that i am in very strong support of the amendment offered by the senator from south dakota. his amendment would immediately end the treasury's authority to spend unobligated tarp funds. that is, those funds that have

either been repaid or were never spent in the first place as part of the so-called tarp program. the amendment would also use repaid tarp funds to lower the deficit, bring down the debt ceiling, which is of course the amount of legal u.s. debt -- and that's the ultimate issue we're going to be vetting on at the end of our exercise presumably -- going to be voting on at the end of our exercise presumably at the end of next week. i initially supported both tranches of the tarp money because i was told by the secretary of treasury and others -- and i believe -- that the money would be used to shore banking, thus stabilizing the financial system here in the united states and that would permit lending to resume. my state of arizona was hit particularly hard by the collapse of the housing bubble. so we needed more lending for small businesses as well as for commercial lending like auto lending, real estate lending, and so phon.

unfortunately, the promised flow of capital has not materialized. today people in my state still struggle to refinance their homes and businesses, and the businesses in particular are struggling to make payments on their property, rollover commitments that they already have, and even pay for things as basic as their inventories or their payroll. and you have to ask how did this happen with all of this tarp money out there? well, partly it's because the tarp program was perverted into a tool for increasing the scope of government, and it's been used for purposes for which it was never intended. some of the money has been used to bail out political interests like auto companies and parts suppliers. that was never intended. and i would never have supported the second tranche of tarp funding had i believed that that's how the money would have been spent. now it's becoming a piggy bank for the second stimulus bill, recently passed by the house of representatives. a bill that would cost taxpayers

$260 billion more in deficit spending. and by "deficit spending," of course i'm referring to the fact that this is all borrowed money. this isn't money that we have and are deciding to spend in a senior way. we have to go out and borrow the money in order to give it to that's people. by lark the returned tarp funds are supposed to be used for deficit reduction. that's the way it was writerren into the bill. the thune amendment would make sure that this happens and, again, this is important because this isn't money that we already had, that the taxpayers had sent to washington and we were just waiting to spend on something. we had to go out and borrow this money from folks like the chinese, and we have to pay them interest on the money. and so when you have to go out and borrow the money in order to provide if for one of these purposes, you have to recognize that when you pay it back, you ought not immediately spend it again. you ought to pay the money back to the government, so the men then can repay the lender and get that obligation off of our books. so returning the money to

treasury is equivalent to paying the money back to our lenders and that in turn allows us to reduce or federal debt. now, this also has the effect of reducing the government borrowing so that the private sector is more able and more easy -- easily able to borrow money. that way businesses can begin to invest more and we can begin job creation. and frankly that's why groups like the national federation for independent businesses support the thune amendment. the whole idea here is to repay the money that the federal government has borrowed so that there is less pressure on the sources of borrowing or on the sources of lending so that the private sector will be able to more easily borrow for their purposes. here's what the nfib said in a recent letter. "small businesses believe it's time to end tarp by passing the thune amendment. we appreciate senator thune's eamptses to create an exit strategy for the unprecedented

level of government ownership in american businesses. the full $700 billion that was originally allocated for tarp is no longer needed and should not be used as a bucket of money for the treasury department to create new federal programs." end of quote. and i would add, for the house of representatives to create new federal programs to the tune of $260 billion more. the american people, i think, could not be clear enough in the money that they've been sending in election after election. stop spending so much money so would don't have to borrow so much money, so it'll be easier for our own families and businesses to borrow money. they've had it with massive spending and the culture of debt that has seized washington. they're watching this very closely. it is, after all, their money that will have to be used to pay the interest on the debt that we accrue when we borrow this money from people like the chinese. and instead of turning right around and deciding we have some great idea on thousand spend

that money again when it's repaid to the treasury, let's retire the debt instead, thus reducing the amount that we have to increase in the debt ceiling. i think this is what our constituents want us to do. it begins with ending tarp and the thune amendment puts us on the path to doing exactly that. and i urge its passage. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, i oppose the conrad-gregg amendment. the presiding officer: serum -- mr. baucus: ask that further proceedings of the quorum call

be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, i oppose the conrad-gregg amendment. this amendment would set up a new deficit reduction commission and have its recommendations considered in the senate and house under expedited parliamentary procedures. this amendment invites congress to abdicate its responsibilities. this amendment is fundamentally unfair to many of our constituents across the country. this amendment should be defeated. under the conrad-gregg proposal, 18 people would make recommendations on how to reduce projected midterm and long-term federal government deficits. of the 18 members, 16 would be members of congress. two would be officials from the administration. i might ask, if some think the congress can't do it, why is this entirely made up out of the congress?

the recommendations of this 18-member commission would be made the subject of votes in both chambers with no amendments allowed. thus, the entire package of recommendations would be given to congress on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. if the congress rad-gregg amendment were enacted, members of congress who are not on the commission would have no say in the development of the commission's recommendations. members of congress who are not on the commission would have no ability to change the recommendations. we'd have to vote on the entire package on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. if members of congress not on the commission found that they favored most of the recommendations but positively abhorred a few of them, they'd be given no opportunity to try to change the ones which they objected to. their choice would be either either to vote for 2340 deficit reduction at all or vote for recommendations that they abhor

with no way to change it. members of congress should not be put in that position. this amendment would disenfranchise the overwhelming majority of members of congress. it would disenfranchise their constituents. this would be fundamentally unfair to their constituents and to them. we should not allow it to happen. let me say a few words about the effects of this commission on social security and medicare. if we create this commission, what is to stop it from making further reductions in medicare spending beyond the changes in the health care reform bill? although the health care reform bill would reduce some reimbursements to providers, it would not cut medicare benefits or eligibility one bit. but the commission could recommend cuttin cuts in medicae eligibility. i might say also that the

congressional budget office, i remind my colleagues, estimated that the health care reform bill that passed this body would reduce the budget deficit by $132 billion over ten years and furred reduce the budget deficit between $650 billion to $1.3 trillion in the next ten years. and what about social security? some people talk as if social security is a major tack tear of the long-term budget deficits. with the congressional budget office projections of the 75-year growth for medicare and medicaid it tells a different story. before enactment of helmet care reform it is more than seven times the growth of social security spendings. reduced projections of midterm or long-term federal deficits we should use the regular order in congress to do so and there's good reason. that's because the system is

already working. the comprehensive health reform bill that is waiting final approval by the house and senate has saw evidence that the system is working. once again the congressional budget office rejected and i made that point few minutes ago, that the federal budget deficits would be reduced by $132 billion in the first ten years and up to $1.3 trillion in the second ten. that's a significant reduction. so the deficit reduction will make a substantial dent. that is, that deficit reduction will make a substantial dent in the long-term deficits and it has been accomplished entirely through regular order. we were able to cut deficits through the regular order. it would thus be ironic to give up on the regular order just when it has achieved such a promising result. there is more work to be done to dries deficits in the midterm and long-term. but the regular order is up to the job of performing these tasks and we should not give up

on it prematurely. we should vote against creating a commission that can take away many of the responsibilities that the constitution gave to congress. i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. it has also been said on the floor here that one way to get revenues is to go after the so-called gap that exists between revenue that is owed the american taxpayers but not collected -- the tax gap it's sometimes called. i would say, why not create a tax cap commission? it does not make sense for this outfit, if it does exist -- i don't think it will, because i think most members of congress will not want to do that -- to cut social security, which is not the problem. social security surplus -- projected surplus at least to the year 2043, in order to make further cuts to medicare beyond what we've made through the regular order, what's left? discretionary spending. if the real effort is tax gap,

well, let's focus on a tax gap commission, not one that will cut medicare, comid, and i might add, mr. president, these people, if there is such a commission, are not qualified. they don't know -- they don't understand the health care system. they don't understand where to make cuts and not to make cuts. they don't understand social security that much. the committees of jurisdiction do. they don't understand where some of the other programs that -- whether they might recommend cuts. they can just only whack, whack, whack, or raising revenue. they don't understand the tax code. that's not their expertise. they're just going to try to find ways to just raise, raise, raise taxes. and it just, i think, is something on the surface that might sort of sound good. let somebody else do it. i can't do it so we'll let somebody else do it. i think that's an abdication of responsibility, mr. president.

i think it's kind of like -- it sounds too good to be true, somebody else is going to do it. it's like the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. why do we run for these jobs, mr. president? all of us sought to be use senators because we wanted to take the responsibility to do what we felt was right for our people in our states. it is sometimes not very easy. it is sometimes quite difficult. and that is -- that's why quey ran. that's what goes with the territory. to step up and make the right decisions and do what needs to be done. in conjunction with the president of the united states. the president of the juice going to make a budget recommendation to the congress in just a matter of a few day, almost a week or so. that's a job of a president, to make a recommendation to the congress what he thinks our budget should be and its a up to the congress then to decide how to deal with that. we've used the regular order through health care. we cut budget deficits by a

large amount. as i indicated, it worked. i think that we should just be courageous enough as members of congress to do what's right, step up and do what we have to do. if we don't do the job, probably our voters will get somebody else to do the job. that's their -- that's their right. that's their privilege. mr. president, i strongly urge the defeat of the conrad-gregg amendment. it's just not a good thing to do. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: mr. president, i ask to speak as if in morning business for up to 14 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: mr. president, i rise today in support of president obama's proposal to

limit the proprietor trading activity of banks, ideas developed by paul volcker, the current chairman of president obama's economic recovery advisory board. mr. president, it is well over a year now since the bursting of the massive speculative bubble fueled by wall street greed and access brought our entire financial system to the brink of disaster. the resulting economic crisis, the worse since the great depression, has had profound effects on working-class americans in the form of millions of job losses and home foreclosures. to say nothing of the hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars used to prop up failing institutions deemed too big to fail. in the coming weeks the senate will begin consideration of landmark financial regulatory reform legislation. as it does, we owe it to the

american people to ensure that never again will the risky behavior of some wall street firms pose a mortal threat to our entire financial system. the rest of us simply cannot afford to pay for the mistakes of the financial leap yet another time. as we look for a better, more durable, more responsible financial system, we must reflect on the fateful decisions and mistakes made over the past decade or so that led us to this point. i think we can begin with the congress's repeal of the glass-steagall act. as you know, glass-steagall was adopted during the great depression primarily to build a fire wall between commercial and investment banking activities. but the passage of the gramm-leach-bliley act of 1999

tore down the wall, paving the way for a braver new world of financial conglomerates. these institutions sought to bring together traditional banking activities with securities and insurance businesses all under the roof of a financial supermarket. this was the end of the era of financial regulation. it was the beginning of laissez faire in washington and wall street that markets could do no wrong. not surprisingly, this zeitgeist of market federalism prevented regulatory decisions and actions made over the entire past decade. it allowed derivatives markets to remain unregulated even after the federal reserve had to orchestrate a multibillion-dollar bailout of the hedge fund long-term capital management which used these contracts to leverage a relatively small amount of capital into trillions of dollars of exposure. it also provided justification for the federal reserve and

other banking regulators to ignore widespread instances of predatory lending and deteriorate mortgage origination standards. it prompted regulators to rely upon credit ratings and bank's own internal modeled instead of their audits and judgments in determining how much banks needed to hold based upon the risk of their assets. perhaps most importantly, this era of lax regulation allowed a small cadre of wall street firms to grow completely upbl checked without any -- unchecked without any regard to their size or the risk that they were taking. in 2004, the securities and exchange commission established a puni stearns that ultimately allowed these firms to leverage themselves more than 30 times to 1. emboldened by this careless

neglect of the regulator, these wall street institutions constructed an unsustainable model punctuated by increasingly risky behavior. for example, some firms used trillions of dollars of short-term liabilities to finance illiquid inventories and securities, engage in speculative trading activities and provide loans to hedge funds. when toxic assets went south, these highly leveraged institutions could no longer roll over their short-term loans, leaving them and all of us down a vicious spiral that required a massive government bailout to stop it. despite this extremely painful experience, wall street has resumed business as usual. only now the business is even more lack alternative -- lucrative. the financial crisis has led to the consolidation of wall street. the survivors face less competition than ever before, allowing them to charge customers higher fees on transactions from equities to

bonds to derivatives. in addition, in the wake of the financial crisis, markets remain volatile and chop parliamentary inquiry. firms willing -- choppy. firms have generated higher returns. mr. president, until this congress acts, there is no guarantee -- no guarantee -- that the short-term trading profits being reaped by wall street today won't become losses borne by the rest of america down the road. mr. president, as many of my colleagues know, i've come to the floor repeatedly to warn about the short-term mind-set on wall street embodied by the explosive growth of high-frequency trading. in a few short years high-frequency trading has grown from 30% of daily trading and volume of stocks to as high as 70%. it has been reported that some high-frequency firms and quantative strategy hedge funds have business relationships with major banks, allowing them to

use their services, credit lines and market access to execute high-frequency trading strategies. under some of these arrangements, these wall street banks are reportedly splitting the profits. in other words, in other cases the major banks have built their own internal proprietary trading desks. these divisions often use their own capital to internalize or trade against customer order flow. it doesn't take a ph.d. to understand that this practice poses an inherent conflict of interest. brokers are bound by an obligation to seek the best prices for their clients' orders, but how can they do that when in trading against those orders firms also have a potential profit motive to disadvantage their clients? both of these arrangements are evidence of a greater problem, and here it is: wall street has become heavily centered on leverage and trading. undoubtedly, as you can see from

the returns, short-term strategies have paid off for banks. in fact, much of the profits, much of the profits earned by our nation's largest financial institutions have been posted by their tpraeugd divisions. -- trading divisions. look at their statements when they file them. but emphasis on short-term trading is cause for concern particularly if traders are taking leveraged positions in order to maximize their short-term earning potential. what i'm saying is if traders are taking leveraged positions in order to maximize their short-term earning potential, it is real cause for concern for us all. by doing so, such high-frequency traders who execute thousands of trades a second could pose a systemic risk to the overall marketplace. in short, wall street once again has become fictionated on short-term -- fixated on

short-term profits and lost sight of its purposes. as i spoke about on the senate floor previously, the downward decline in initial public offerings for small companies over the past 15 years has hurt our economy and its ability to create jobs. while calculated risk taking is a fundamental part of finance, markets only work when investors not only benefit from their returns, but also bear the risk and the cost of failure. what is most troubling about our situation today is that on wall street, it is a game of "heads, i win. tails, you bail me out." the size, scope and complexity of many financial institutions have made them too big to fail. moreover, the popularity of the financial supermarket model further raises the risk that insured deposits of banks can be used to finance speculative

financing. unfortunately these risks have been heightened by recent decisions of the federal reserve, the first charged to goldman sachs and morgan stanley, the second regulations that limit loans banks can make to the securities' affiliates. there are a number of ways we can address these problems. the major financial reform proposals being considered by congress propose some entity for identifying systemically risky firms and subjecting them to heightened regulation and standards including leverage requirements. in addition, these proposals also include an orderly mechanism for the prompt corrective action and dissolution of troubled financial institutions of systemic importance that is typically based upon the one we already have in place for banks. although both of these ideas are vital reforms, they are not sufficient. instead, we must go further.

heeding some of the sage advice as president obama has today provided by paul volcker, current chairman of president obama's economic recovery advisory board. chairman volcker said -- and i quote -- "commercial banking institutions should not engage in highly risky entrepreneurial activity. that is not their job because it brings into question the stability of the institution. it may encourage pursuit of a profit in the short run, but is not consistent with the stability that those institutions should be about. it's not consistent at all with avoiding conflict of interest." end of quote. i strongly support the ideas chairman volcker has put forward regarding the need to limit the proprietary trading activities of banks. indeed they get at the root cause of the financial meltdown by insuring wall street's

recklessness never again, never again cripples our economy. we can reduce the moral hazard present in a model that allows banking to mix with securities activities by prohibiting banks from providing their securities affiliates with any loans or other forms of assistance. while commercials should and must be protected by the government in the form of deposit insurance and emergency lending, chairman volcker states -- and i quote -- "that protection, to the extent practical, should not be extended to broadly cover risky market kaplt activities removed from the core commercial banking functions." such a reform would eliminate the possibility of banks even indirectly using insured deposits of their customers to finance the speculative trading operations of the securities affiliates. in addition, we can bar commercial banks from owning or sponsoring hedge funds, private equity firms and proprietary

trading and securities derivatives." unquote. as aptly put, be a bank, be a hedge fund but don't a bank hedge fund. that seems to be axiomatic and the truth. mr. president, that is why i'm so pleased to be a cosponsor of the bill introduced by senators cantwell and mccain to repeal glass-steagall because i thought it was a start to this very, very important conversation. separating commercial banking from merchant banking and proprietary trading operations is an important step toward addressing banks that are clearly too big to fail. additionally, we need to impose restrictions on size and leverage, particularly on the reliance of short-term liabilities and give regulators additional powers to break apart firms that pose serious threats to the stability of the financial system or others.

reducing the size and scope of individual entities will limit risky banking behavior, causing industry-wide panic and decrease the need to once again rescue large failing institutions. together all these reforms will create a financial system that is safe against failure. mr. president, we cannot continue to leave the taxpayers of america vulnerable to future bailouts simply because some large banking institutions wish to pursue short-term trading practices. for that reason, as congress works to pass financial regulatory reform in the coming weeks, reducing systemic risk by eliminating conflicts of interest and addressing banks deemed too big to fail should be one of our very, very top priorities. separating core bank financial franchises from speculative

activities, imposing tighter leverage requirements and examining the complicated relationships between high-frequency traders and banks constitute the very critical steps toward ensuring our financial markets are strong and stable. by adopting the common sense proposals we can go a long way toward stablizing our economy, restoring confidence in our markets and protecting the american people from at future bailout. america cannot afford another financial meltdown and the american people are looking to congress to ensure that that does not happen. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr.

president. mr. president, over the past five months i have repeatedly expressed concerns about the environmental protection agency's decision to issue backdoor climate regulations under the clean air act. i spoke at length about this issue here on the senate floor in september and then again in december. and i've also discussed it with dozens of groups from all across the political spectrum and found that there is remarkably widespread agreement with my views on this issue. as the e.p.a. moves closer and closer to issuing these regulations, i continue to believe that this command and control approach is our worst option for reducing the emissions blamed for climate change. i also believe that with so much at stake, congress must be given time to develop an appropriate and more responsible solution. and so today, mr. president, after consultation with the

parliamentarian, i have come to the floor to introduce a resolution of disapproval under the congressional review act that would prevent the e.p.a. from acting on its own. senator lincoln of arkansas, senator nelson of nebraska, and senator landrieu of louisiana have joined me as cosponsors on this bipartisan resolution, along with 35 of my republican colleagues. but, mr. president, i've also come to the floor this morning to reaffirm and to reemphasize my previous remarks on this issue. and given what has been alleged about my intentions, i believe that this debate needs to be directed back to its substance and away from the attacks and the red herrings that have been thrown out in the past few weeks. there is a legitimate and substantive debate to be had

over whether the e.p.a. should be able to issue command and control regulation. and will come that debate. if there are any senators who support the unprecedented regulatory intrusion that the e.p.a. is pursuing, then i would hope that those members would come to the floor and explain why i strongly oppose that approach, however, and i hope that my colleagues will listen to my explanations as to why i feel as strongly about this as i do. our bipartisan resolution deals with an incredibly important issue, and that is, whether or not members of this body are comfortable with the actions that e.p.a. will take under its current interpretation of the clean air act. i'm not comfortable with those actions. an neither are the senators -- and neither are the senators who have already agreed to add their names to this action. the clean air act was written by this congress to regulate criterion pollutants, not

greenhouse gases. and it's implementation remains subject to oversight and guidance from elected representatives. we should continue our work to pass meaningful energy an climate legislation, but in the mean time -- in the mean time we cannot turn a blind eye to the e.p.a.'s efforts to impose backdoor climate regulations with no input from congress. the decision to offer this resolution was brought about by what will happen in the wake of e.p.a.'s decision to issue the endangerment finding. for, you see, it's not -- it's not merely a finding. it's actually a floodgate and under the guise of protecting the environment it's set to unleash a wave of damaging new regulations that will wash over and further submerge our struggling economy. make no mistake, if congress allows this to happen, there will be severe consequences to

our economy. business also be forced to cut jobs, if not move outside our borders or close their doors for good perhaps. domestic energy production will be severely restricted, increasing our dependence on foreign suppliers and threatening our national security. housing will become less affordable. consumer goods more expensive as the impacts of the e.p.a.'s regulations are felt in the towns and the cities and on farms all across america. mr. president, my home state is a perfect example of why we must proceed with utmost caution. if these regulations are allowed, the consequences for alaska will be devastating much hundreds of facilities will be subject to much greater regulation, including, large hospitals, hotels, fish processors, mines. energy intensive industries throughout the state will be

forced to inquire and install new equipment and tech nothingies. in many cases this will prove impossible because the technologies are too expensive or simply do not exist. now, because the e.p.a.'s proposed regulations are such a blunt hit tool, they will hit my state's energy sector particularly hard. the continued operation of existing businesses and future endeavors alike, including alaska's 3 refineries that we have, the transalaska pipeline system, we call it taps, and the proposed alaska natural pipeline will all be jeopardized. take for examle. -- example the mint hill, this refinery purchases oil out of the pipelines at premium rates which is critically important to the continued operation of taps itself. that 800-mile long pipeline has

been challenged by decreasing throughput as lower volumes are taking longer to arrive from the north slope. oil is also arriving at the flint hills refinery at lower temperatures than it used to be which requires more energy to heat and crack the crude oil in the marketable fuels that alaskans depend upon. the flint hills refinery already struggles to keep its jet fuel output at competitive rates in order to maintain and increase its status as a major center for air cargo. it also faces a relatively inelastic market in alaska for its other fuel products. the e.p.a. will likely be unable and in any event unwilling to address these issues under its command and control climate regulations. i mentioned the alaska natural gas pipeline, something that we are working very hard to -- to

allow to come about, but the construction and -- and operation of an alaska natural pipeline would be significantly hobbled by the e.p.a. and the main reason for this relates to compressor stations, which maintain a pipeline's pressures and enable movement of the gas. there is no known best available control technology as would be required under the clean air act for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from compressors and no good options for compliance. i cannot overstate how important these facilities and these projects are to alaska and to america. our refineries help ensure the state's status as a transportation hub as well as a strategic base for our military operations. the transalaska pipeline system delivers hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil to americans each day and most of the revenue for alaska's state's budget. the proposed natural gas pipeline is a pillar of our

future economy that will bring americans billions of cubic feet of clean burning natural gas and collectively these projects mean well-paying jobs for thousands of hard-working alaskans. and while the e.p.a.'s endangerment finding may be described as an effort to protect our environment, it would actually damage the very foundation of my state's economy. and alaska isn't the only state that would face dire economic consequences. my colleagues need to -- to consider the ripple effect of this decision and the heavy economic burden that it will place on those throughout the lower 48. and this was foreshadowed in -- in new mexico back in september in -- in december kentucky faced the same situation, arkansas just last week, the e.p.a. has ordered regulators in each of these states to go back to the drawing board on -- on plans to

build new power plants. and these decisions were all the results of this e.p.a.'s interpretation of the clean air act and represent a fundamental departure from the permitting process that congress had envisioned for this statute. mr. president, the -- the implications are clear. the people who live in those states are already feeling the effects. construction is being delayed, jobs are -- are not being created or, more importantly, being filled. commerce is suffering, and depending on what becomes of these proposed plans, local residents may have to brace for a spike in energy prices as well. seen in this light, the e.p.a.'s regulations will not only add a thick new layer of federal bureaucracy, but they also serve to depress economic activity, to slow it down, to make it more expensive, to render it less efficient. mr. president, if you thought

the recession made for good environmental policy, i expect you're going to love what the e.p.a. has to offer. obtaining federal air permits is already an exercise in administrative agony that can take years and cost millions of dollars. and that's before the existing system is overwhelmed by millions of new applicants. now instead of accepting that the clean air act is not appropriate for this task, the e.p.a. has proposed to lift its regulatory thresholds to 25,000 tons per year for greenhouse gas. that represents a clear departure from the statute's explicit requirements, and that has opened the agency to litigation, costly, time consuming, and endlessly frustrating litigation. lawsuits are already being prepared against the e.p.a.'s so-called tailoring proposal. when the final rule is issued, it will be challenged.

and i expect the courts will then reject it as it has no legal basis and then restore the regulatory thresholds to 100 tons and 250 tons per year. before long, the agency will find itself mired in the regulatory nightmare that it has sought to avoid. now, again, it's hard not to find this both -- both surreal and -- and deeply disturbing. the national unemployment rate has spiked to 10-plus percent, yet here in washington federal bureaucrats are contemplating regulations that will destroy jobs while millions of americans are doing everything that they can just to find one. moreover, given the amount of time that it's taken us here in the senate to consider health care and the list of the many other bills that are waiting to be considered, it appears there's not going to be enough time for congress to debate energy and climate legislation before the e.p.a. takes action.

and that means that the people of our states have no voice in this process. they will be subject to the rules and to the regulations that affect their lives and their livelihoods without ever having had an opportunity to express their concerns through their representatives in congress. perhaps the most important question that needs to be answered is -- is this one: why -- why would the e.p.a. want to pursue these regulations right now when we should be focused on getting our economy back on track? environmental advocates, senior democrats, the administrator of the e.p.a., and even the president have repeatedly said -- repeatedly said that they prefer congressional legislation. so with such widespread and high-level agreement, you'd think that it would be easy to suspend the agency's efforts.

but, unfortunately, that's not the case. because many of those same individuals are somehow convinced that the threat of e.p.a. regulations is somehow useful, somehow necessary. it's no secret that this is the centerpiece of a highly coercive strategy. it's the administration attempting to force the congress to pass a climate bill more quickly than it otherwise would. for my part i would just point out that that strategy has failed so far. and it will continue to fail in the months ahead because members of congress will not enact bad legislation in order to stave off bad regulation. what the administration's strategy has done, however, is to put congress in a difficult position. it's apparent to almost all of us that more time is needed to develop a good climate policy that can draw the bipartisan support the majority here in the senate. we're working on it. i've got my staff that's

actively working to develop a wide range of approaches for reducing emissions. we know that senator cantwell and senator collins have recently introduced a new approach. senators graham, kerry and lieberman are hard at work on their tripartisan proposal. as the e.p.a. proceeds with its regulations, congress remains far from completing its work and we're left with no choice but to shaft least part of our focus to halting the e.p.a.'s efforts. as i've stated before, my goals here are twofold. ensure that congress has sufficient time to work on climate legislation and to ensure that the worst of our options, which is a massive expansion of the clean air act, does not occur before that task is finished. now, in addition to the senators who have signed on as cosponsors of our bipartisan resolution, there's a variety of stakeholders who have expressed strong support for slowing or

stopping the e.p.a. from issuing its greenhouse gas regulations. many of these comments have focused on the tailoring proposal while others oppose the endangerment finding itself. some at the outer edges of the environmental community obviously disagree, but i think that much of the rest of america, including state officials, businesses, farmers, taxpayer advocates, all share our belief that the clean air act should not be used to regulate emissions, and i'd like to give you a few examples, mr. president. the governor of example, sean parnell, has written that -- quote -- "the fundamental question proposed by -- 0 or posed by the proposed rule is whether greenhouse gases can be effectively regulated under the clean air act. we think not. attempting to force-fit the clean air act to the purpose of regulating greenhouse gases will be ineffective and negatively impact alaska. the proposed rule would bury alaska's businesses, institution, and the state's

environmental agencies in the regulatory burden. the governor of mississippi, haley barbour, has written that -- quote -- "regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the clean air act will endoubtedly increase the cost of energy, increasing the cost of doing business, increase the cost of consumer products, and jeopardize millions of jobs by putting u.s. manufacturers at a disadvantage over -- against foreign competitors." the governor of west virginia joe mansion, commented that "pat a time when our state is fighting to save jobs and stablize the economy, we cannot afford to act carelessly. e.p.a. has taken a risky and unprecedented step in promulgating this rule. the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is a matter that should be left to congress, and e.p.a. would be wise to seek congressional action instead of attempting to regulate

greenhouse gases under the clean air act." even the california energy commission, based in the state with the strictest environmental standards, felt compelled to weigh in because they state, "cope's proposed tailoring throash hold jeopardizes california's energy strategy." so instead of speeding the transition to cleaner energy, california is worried that e.p.a.'s proposals will actually slow down their progress. dozens of state governors and attorneys general have submitted comments opposing at least one of the e.p.a.'s regulations but comments from our elected officials are not the half of it. the national taxpayers union has issued a press release that says in part, "at a time when taxpayers are feeling the greatest squeeze since the great depression, it's unconscionable that the congress is responding with regulatory and legislative proposals that will only make matters worse."

and then in a letter that was delivered to me just yesterday, the american farm bureau federation wrote that its delegates have unanimously adopted a resolution that -- quote -- "strongly supports any legislative action that would suspend e.p.a.'s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the clean air act." close quote. the letter then goes one to assert that how carbon emagicians should be recreated is a matter to be decided by elected officials. that debate is now ongoing on capitol hill and it is there that these policy questions should be answered. and finally, the small business administration's office of advocacy has concluded that the e.p.a.'s clean house gas rules will likely have a -- quote -- "significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities, small businesses, small communities, and small nonprofit associations that will be afcted either immediately or -- you affected

either immediately or in the near-term." mr. president, as public aware informs our bipartisan disapproval resolution grows in the days ahead, i expect that there will be many more statements that will be issued in support of its passage and while there is an extremely vocal minority that does not support it i do hope that my senate colleagues will look at the broad coalition that does and join us to oppose the e.p.a.'s regulations. now, before i wrap up, mr. president, i'd also lying to address the criticisms and arguments that have been made by those who oppose my efforts, and i'd like to address four of the latest claims in hopes of putting them to rest. first of all, i would like to reiterate that our bipartisan disapproval resolution deals with the e.p.a.'s current interpretation of the clean air act and has nothing to do with the science of global climate change. i would also remind my critic

that i cosponsored a cap-and-trade bill in the congress and last year worked with members to craft a bipartisan clean energy bill and that bill, unfortunately, has been languishing on the senate calendar for nearly eight months now, just waiting to be called up and considered. it would lead to significant emissions reddictions and greater energy security for our country. now, i'd also like to address a rather creative claim that has been made that somehow i'm attempting to gut the clean air act or subvert it into a dirty air act. and i have to admit that when i first saw this, it actually made me laugh because it is so wildly inaccurate. neither my previous amendment nor this resolution would have any effect on pollution standards and controls. neither would change a single word of the current statute.

my resolution would simply prevent the massive, unwarranted expansion of this statute by halting e.p.a.'s efforts to use it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, a purpose for which it was never intended and a role that it simply cannot fulfill without serious and detrimental consequences. now, it's also been stated that this resolution was somehow -- somehow -- prevent congress from working scriewctively on climate -- working constructively on climate legislation this year. not the case. my resolution will restrain the e.p.a.'s ability to regulate greenhouse gas regulations but it will have no ablght on congress's ability to debate climate policy. it is especially ironic that these comefntses were made by the senator who has complete control of the senate calendar. so if climate legislation does not come up this year, it is abundantly clear to me who will have made that decision. now, the last claim that i would

like too address are the allegations about who helped draft my september amendment, which i might remind colleagues woos never offered and is no longer on the table. not only are those allegations categorically false burkes they highlight -- they highlight the unwillingness of opponents to this measure to engage in the real policy discussion that we should be having. the question that so many of the individuals and the groups opposed to my efforts have failed entirely to answer is if they honestly think that the e.p.a. regulations under the clean air act would be good or bad for america. now, i hope, mr. president, that the debate over this resolution will stay rooted in the substance. there's plenty of substance for us to debate. there is a legitimate and a substantive debate to be had about whether or not the e.p.a. should be allowed to issue these regulations before congress has

had an opportunity to fully debate the issue of climate change. in my mind, the answer is no. congress must be given the time that it needs to develop a responsible policy that protects both the environment and the economy. we are not incapable or even unwilling to legislate on this topic. so far this congress has merely failed to develop a balanced measure that draws enough support to be signed into law, and we can remedy that shortcoming, and i remain committed to playing a constructive floal that effort. i believe that the looming specter of e.p.a. regulations is actually a big part of the reason that we've had had difficulty moving forward on climate legislation. even though we know that some approaches for reducing emissions are greatly inferior to others, there's inexpoliticcable resistance to removing even our worst option

from consideration. i haven't heard one member -- one member -- say that he or she prefers regulation over legislation. i haven't heard one member say that. and yet this option is not only still around, but it's also closer than ever to becoming reality. and as long as it remains out there, it will be plan-b for those who wish to address climate change at any cost. and if this issue has become so politicized that some members would support e.p.a. regulation instead of a legislative effort aimed at passing a bipartisan bill, that would not only be a tragedy for our constituents but i believe also a sad day for us in the senate. if we're serious about fulfilling our duty to our constituents and giving this issue the full debate that it deserves, we should take the e.p.a. regulations off the table. without a backstop that says emissions will be reduced one way or another, no matter how

painful, supporters of climate legislation would have to get serious about finding common ground and bipartisan cosponsors. major environmental legislation such as the clean air act, the clean water act, and the safe drinking water act all faced opposition at the outset. but members worked together to resolve the concerns instead of threatening to take a different or a more disajing course. -- or a more damaging course. as ed muskie would later write, "the clean air act was passed unanimously after just two days on the floor which prompted senator umean to mccarthy to remark that he'd finally found an issue better than motherhood and some people are even against motherhood." the clean water act passed and the safe drink water act didn't even require a roll call voavment it was passed by voice vote. mr. president, the senate has a history of coming together to

overwhelmingly support commonsense environmental legislation. today, however, as we seek the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we're being presented with a false choice between unacceptable legislation and unacceptable regulations. we're being told -- threatened, really -- to pass a bill now or the economy will suffer. a number of senators are trying to develop bills that can be signed into law but even as that work continues, the e.p.a.'s endangerment finding has opened the door to further economic damage. i believe that congress must take that option off the table and we can do that by approving the bipartisan disapproval resolution that 39 senators have now introduced allowing the e.p.a. to proceed will endanger jobs and our economy and our global competitiveness, and that should be an outcome that we can all agree to avoid.

if you truly believe that e.p.a. climate regulation are good for the company, then you vote to oppose our resolution. but if you share our concerns and you believe that climate policy should be debated here in congress, then vote with us to support. with that, mr. president, i thank you, and i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: thank you so much, mr. president. what we're about to debate here is an unprecedented move by a united states senator and her cosponsors to overturn a health finding made by health experts and scientific experts in order to stand with the special interests. now, that is clear to me, regardless of what is said on this floor. i listened to my colleague. i never heard her say, we want to overturn the experts who

found that carbon pollution is a danger to the health of our families. now, look ... it is very, very reasonable to debate the best way to clean up the air from carbon pollution. i have a way i think is the best. it's supported by, you know, many in the environmental community, many in the business community. i have here a letter signed -- which i would ask to place in the record -- of 80 businesses that just took outer an ad and said, let's get on with it. and they want to set up the type of system that i do, wilds give maximum flexibility to business. and i will like to put that in the record, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. it is so ordered. mrs. boxer: and we have many mayors. we had our 1,000th mayor say, get won it. let's get the job done. and senator murkowski laid out various ways that we have people working. she left out one way -- the

house-passed bill, the senate environment and public works had an overwhelming majority for our approach. we have senators kerry, grawrnlings and lieberman -- and i support qula they're doing -- trying to find the 60 votes so we can have the kind of bipartisanship that senator murkowski lauds. we have senators cantwell and collins coming together. i'm very excited about that -- very -- on a new approach on how to deal with carbon pollution. that debate is appropriate. let me tell you what is not appropriate, mr. president: to repeal a finding that was made by scientists and health experts that carbon pollution is a danger to the health of our children, to our families, to our communities. that's inappropriate, and it is never, ever, ever been done before. now i want to say where i stand

on this. my number-one job as a united states senator is to protect the health and safety of the people of my great state of california and the people of america. i believe that is our highest calling. the murkowski resolution is a direct assault on the health of the american people. and make no mistake about it. you can cover it up with lots of words. you can say a lot of things out here of how proud you are of all the work that's going on to control carbon pollution. but when you get up here and you offer a resolution -- and i've got it in my hands, and it clearly says overturn the endangerment finding. that's simply stated in accordance with a supreme court ruling that carbon is in fact a danger to the health of our families. to do this?

unprecedented. i would say what would have happened if a senator came down and we found out that nicotine and cigarettes makes them addictive and causes cancer -- what would happen if a senator came down here and said, no, no, we want to overturn that rule that regulates how much nicotine can go in there? we know better, because we're politicians and suddenly we become doctors. what would have happened, mr. president, if a senator came down to the floor and said we don't like the finding by the e.p.a. that lead is a danger to our children and causes brain development? you know what? we don't want them to act on this. we don't want them to control lead in paint. it's okay if they suck it up when they're little babies. thank god no senator did that. i don't remember or recall any senator coming down to the floor of this united states senate and

saying asbestos? well, maybe it's okay if people breathe it in. and so let's repeal the rule that said we need to protect our workers from asbestos. no senator ever did that, thank god. so that our agencies can move forward and protect our communities and our people. black lung disease, that was a long time ago. there was a connection made between the coal dust and our miners. i don't remember, or i didn't read about anybody coming to the floor and saying we need to repeal the health finding on this. and because we didn't have any senators that did that, frankly, and because we had enough respect for health officials, public health officials, scientists, doctors, we let them

do their job. and, yes, we might have fought it out here. gee, how much should we spend to protect our work tprers black lung -- workers from black lung disease and asbestos? how much should we spend as a society to take the lead out of paint? we never ever had a senator come down to the floor to try and overturn a finding that was made by the health community. this is a new low, in my humble opinion. and the reason i say it is because, to me, i'm here for one reason: to make life better for the people that i represent. and repealing scientific health expert findings is not what i should be doing. i should be working to make sure that after i know the fact that there's a danger, what's the best way to get the carbon pollution out of the air.

that's totally fair. i can tell you right now, i'm not going to get my way on the best way to do it because we don't have 60 votes for that. i understand that. that's why i'm supporting all of my colleagues that are working so hard to try and come up with the 60 votes. but you don't repeal an endangerment finding -fpld what would have -- finding. what would have happened to our families if we had senators that did that? we didn't do that in the past. we listened to the scientists and health experts. we took action that saved countless lives. this amendment would harm our families. now, i can tell you if i saw someone coming down the street about to attack my family, i would do exactly what my colleague would do. we would fight back. we would say, whatever it took, we would fight back. well, this is about the public

health. this is about the health of the planet. this is about the future of america. this is about jobs in america, and there's lots of debates that we could have. but, my goodness, talking about picking a battle over a scientific fact, that's what my colleague is doing. now, she says she's standing with the american people. well, let me tell you a few of the american people who strongly oppose what she is doing. the american public health association, they say "we strongly urge you to oppose any resolution that would repeal the public health findings." the association of public health laboratories, the national association of county and city health officials, the national environmental health association, the the physicians

for social responsibility, the trust for america's health, the center for december control who under -- for disease control who under the administration of george w. bush started the scientific work that led to this endangerment finding. 90% of the work on this endangerment finding was done by the bush administration. this is such a radical amendment, it throws out all of their work too. in our families -- families come first. and if our families come first in all of our minds, then we can battle about how to get the carbon out of the air, but we should not be repealing a finding that clearly states that our families' health would suffer if we don't get this carbon out of the air. my colleague says she wants to get the carbon out of the air. she's looking forward to working

with all the colleagues i mentioned and more. and that's great. and believe me, she and i have talked about this, and i hope she comes to the table. it would be wonderful if we got her help and she went on a bill. so far that hasn't happened, and that's her choice. maybe she will write her own bill, and that will be wonderful too. but that doesn't mean because we haven't found the 60 votes here that we can afford to come down here and repeal a finding that is very clear about the health of our people. there are health effects of doing nothing. and my colleague says, you know, wha*? it may take us awhile to fix this problem. maybe a year. it might take five years, by the way. what she wants to do is state that nobody, nobody can take action to protect their families from carbon pollution while we dither around here -- and i'm

happy that we're working -- it could take us a long time to get this. do you know how long it took to get the clean air act amendment? a long time, years. and i am not willing to put my families and my state -- my families in my state and my state in jeopardy. and nor the american people. because if you take away this endangerment finding and we decide we know better than the all the health experts, e.p.a. cannot do anything. my colleague may complain about the command and control of the e.p.a. i want to talk about that -- command and control of the e.p.a. these are words that are meant to frighten people. i never heard her come down and say we want to take away the command and control of the e.p.a. under the clean air act to make sure we don't have smog

in the air. i never heard her come down here and say we don't need to have the command and control of the e.p.a. in making sure that arsenic in the water isn't overwhelming, or mercury in the fish. i don't hear her doing that. so all of a sudden command and control in the e.p.a. is an issue. we have an environmental protection agency to protect our people. and if we wind up overturning the health issues that are necessary before they can act, what are we doing here? playing doctor? that is not why i came here. now, look, you have e.p.a. every day going out there controlling hazardous air pollutants. carbon tetrachloride, known to

cause cancer. does my friend want to say that is command and control? let's take away the ability of the e.p.a. to protect our families from carbon tetrachloride. naphathelene, another known carcinogen, causing cancer. vial chloride, known to cause cancer. cadmium known to cause cancer and harm the reproductive system. they're all toxins that the e.p.a. is working on to make sure that our families are protected. one day i suppose the senator could come down here and say let's repeal the scientific finding that says that these toxins cause cancer, and then the e.p.a. won't have the ability to use their command and control to protect our families. this is the type of precedent we are setting here today, at a time when we know there are more

and more chemicals and toxins that are in fact impacting our families. cyanide is another one. cyanide. the scientists told us it's extremely toxic to people. it harms the nervous system. it harms the cardiovascular system and the respiratory system. we control it through command and control at the e.p.a. because it is a danger. the supreme court said in very clear language to the bush e.p.a.: you wasted eight years. this is a danger to society, in a supreme court decision, this conservative court said to the e.p.a.: you better make this endangerment finding. now here's what we know about the endangerment finding that my colleague wants to overturn.

there's evidence this is what the e.p.a. found, that the number of extremely hot days is increasing. severe heat waves are projected to intensify which result in heat-related mortality and sickness. and it goes on to talk about air quality. and this is important. climate change is expected to worsen regional ground-level ozone pollution. exposure to ground level ozone has been linked to respiratory health problems ranging from decreased lung functions to increased emergency hospital visits and even premature death. and it goes on and talks about the elderly, already people in poor health; the disabled, living alone, people living alone. and the extreme events that are anticipated, which by the way, some people feel are already happening.

extreme events. extreme cold, extreme snow, extreme flooding, extreme drought; some of the things that are already happening. why on earth would the senate get into the business of repealing science? repealing the work of health experts? there's only one answer. there's only one answer, to me. and that is that's what the special interests want to have happen now because they're desperate, because they know the clean air act does in fact cover carbon pollution. the supreme court found that, and they have nowhere else to turn. the only way to stop the environmental protection agency from protecting our families just the way they protect them from lead and arsenic and smog and napthalenae and chloride and

others is to begin to act. we know that the e.p.a. is very aware that we are working on legislation, and they have told us, and i think anyone who would call them, that they're not interested in doing some draconian measures now. they're just getting ready. they're just getting started because the science has told us this is a problem. and so people can stand up here and say, oh, all we're doing is giving just a little time for the senators to get the 60 votes. hey, that may not happen. in a year or two or three or five or six or eight or 10. maybe it will happen tomorrow. believe me, i am working on it. and i'm hopeful that it will work. when you get 80 businesses writing us -- telling us in a

letter, and formed a new organization called, we can lead, and these are very, very important businesses all across our nation, maybe that will help us act. but until that time there's only one thing that is available for our people, mr. president, to protect them, to protect their families, to protect their children, to protect the planet and that is the environmental protection agency. now maybe if you don't like the environmental protection agency, get up here and -- and offer an amendment to do away with the e.p.a. just do away with it. or try to change the clean air act and say it shouldn't cover carbon if that's what you want to do. but -- and by the way, we would debate that very soundly. it would be a good debate. but don't come here and try to repeal a very important

scientific and health finding because that sets a whole new precedent and lord knows where it could lead. we have more letters here. my colleague here, she says that she stands on the side of the people. okay. that's her jujt. i would tell you if you -- judgment. i would tell you if you went out and said to the people should the government repeal a scientific finding that has been signed off by the bush administration, the current administration and health care experts all ofor over the count, they'd say, no, what are they doing? what are they meddling in our health? but that's not how the senator is explaining her amendment, her russ liewtion. she says -- resolution. she says it is a little moratorium. it's just going to stop this for a little while. not true.

it repeals an endangerment finding. now, let me tell you some other letters we got here. we, the 195 undersigned endorsers -- now, remember, you heard from my colleague that the people stand with her. we have a letter here, 1995 signers -- 195 signers urge you to oppose the amendment attack on the clean air act that would undermine public health and prevent action on global warming. this comes in an amendment by senator murkowski to the debt bill. they thought it was coming in that form. it is now coming in a different form, which is to reverse the endangerment finding. and they go on to say the e.p.a.'s endangerment finding is based on an exhaustive review of the massive body of scientific research showing a clear threat from climate change and they go on. and they say that -- that their

organization has a 40-year track record of protecting the public health. a senator: mr. president? would the senator be willing to yield for a unanimous consent request? mrs. boxer: as long as i don't lose the floor. mr. gregg: i ask to be recognized after the senator from california has completed her comments. mrs. boxer: reserving the right to object and i will not object. i want to make sure that the speaker after that is from our side. with that understanding, i would not object. so -- the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: i'm sorry? thank you. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: so i want to put in the record the doctors who are so alarmed at this murkowski amendment to repeal an endangerment finding that they have written a letter.

and here's who they are. i'm going to take some time to read all of these, people. david cantwell of alabama, jane -- dr. james gesamman of tucson, arizona; dr. trevor hare, of tucson arizona, dr. hunland of gilbert, arizona; dr. steven manning of bebe, arkansas; doctors -- these are the doctors from california. doctors richard ambrose, linda anderson, steven astollos, laurence badish, dr. bricks, paul chestnut, david cleveland, bernard klilack, mary cloaker,

allen cunningham, george ellisson, yesterday furman, daniel lisson camp, dr. jeff holdclaw, dr. richard krasdoff, dr. levine, dr. litiker, dr. lindsey, dr. mese, dr. maldrick, dr. poser, doctor rosenberger, dr. sodder, dr. smith, dr. stewart, dr. sage, dr. field, dr. weiss, dr. weiss. those are all doctors from my home state of california who said: do not support the murkowski attempt to repeal an

endangerment and health finding. i will read the doctors from colorado. dr. albetti, bartlett, sofelli, hemenez, rosenblum, sleperd, unra, and dr. wikoph. doctors from connecticut, dr. shadnen, dr. rudkedanen, doctors from -- doctor court any, dr. hardy, dr. parker, dr. theman all from florida. these are doctors from all over the country who heard about this resolution. and, believe me, this is very quick that they got these signatures. so when senator murkowski says

she stands with the people, i want to just point out here, that i do not believe for one moment that the people of this country want to go against the doctors and scientists who are signing this letter and the health community that say it's important that we note the dangers of carbon pollution to our families. i'm going to continue the doctors from georgia: dr. kruger, dr. laurence, dr. mccormick. from hawaii: dr. steiner, from illinois: dr. lucia. glenmire, suborsky. from indiana, dr. ion, batka, pua, pasut, smith. and i apologize to any physician's name i'm not

pronouncing correctly. i'm doing my best here. i think it's important when a senator takes to the floor and says that the people want to see this endangermen endangerment fg overturned that we make sure that we lay out the facts here about some very important people who -- who lead us on these health issues and in the course of a few days put together 195 doctors saying: vote no against the resolution. in iowa: dr. baker, dr. tawson. and in kentucky, dr. bruce. in louisiana dr. tornquist. in maine francis pearlman. in massachusetts doctors dale and longmeadow and davidson.

and allyson dunn, robert gumash, doctors havel, cole, rosholo, daniel shuton, dr. smith, john terrell, nicholas white, dr. wilson, dr. witick, in michigan, doctors allen, anderson, regreff, dr. ray froddi, dr. gardner, lorenpasnifon. in minnesota, dr. balonic, doll, hazard. mississippi, dr. lazel. missouri david pollack. new hampshire doctors eagleton and latonda.

howard meade. in new mexico, dr. kolasa, in new york dr. cooper, dr. god freed, dr. grunter, dr. huberman. george profose, dr. ridlick, dr. russell and strauss and wani. in north carolina: graham, gray, renyolds richardson, toddman. in ohio, andrew, fedderman, geiger, motorelli. and the list goes on, rhode island, tennessee, texas, utah, vermont, virginia, washington, west virginia and wisconsin. and i ask unanimous consent to

place this document into the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: so, again, i want to reiterate why i am down herein the floor. -- down here on the floor. senator murkowski is announcing that she has announced that she seeks to overturn the scientific finding that carbon pollution is harmful to the health of our families. i think this is radical. i think this has never been done. and i think that if senators had done it in the past, we couldn't have protected our families from tobacco or from arsenic or from lead or from ozone, from smog, from kadmian, and the list goes on. she doesn't want the e.p.a. to take any action to protect our families. and this is a very radical way to go about it. we have a letter from the attorneys general of rhode

island, california, connecticut, delaware, and new mexico, vermont and the corporation council for the city of new york. i ask unanimous consent that i place that in the record and, if i might, get -- the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: thank you, mr. president. in some they say, we support e.p.a.'s action as a start toward holding the biggest polluters athe accountable -- accountable. jump-starting a vibrant clean energy economy. a vote for the murkowski amendment they write, would be a step backwards. instead of standing in the way of progress, congress should defeat this resolution. so we put that in the record. communities of faith -- i -- i think it's very important when the senator from alaska says she stands with the people. let's see where the communities of faith come down. they are saying: vote no on the murkowski amendment.

the church world service, coalition on the environment and jewish life, the rebusines the s committee on national legislation, the jewish council for public affairs, the national council of churches, the marinol office of public concerns, the presbyterian church of u.s.a. washington office, the justice peace integrity creation office, the union for reformed -- the unitarian universal association of congregation, the united church of christ justice and witness minutist tries, the general board church of society and others. i ask unanimous consent to place that in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. mrs. boxer: now we also have another letter opposing the efforts of the senator from alaska to overturn an endangerment finding and that letter is signed by so many

members of the -- of our community. i'm going to name just a few and then i'm going to ask that this letter from e-2 be placed in the record. here's who signed this: the c.e.o. of luseka lighting, the president of cross river pictures, i.b.m. signed this letter, george bailey did for i.b.m. let's see what we have. physicist tony bernhart from the lawrence livermore national lab, professors of physics at m.i.t., aaron bernstein this. goes on and on. aim just picking out the theological seminary in san francisco, doctoral students from stanford, financial advisor u.b.s. financial services; president investment marketing

inc. it goes on and on. seattle university law school, assistant professor there. i don't even know where -- this is so many names, i'm just -- the founder of cybase, new resource bank, bob epstein. general partner of trinity ventures, lakeside enterprises, granite ventures, tiffany -- well, this is spelled different than the tiffany we know d. the former vice president of oracle, the executive vice president of oracle, on and on. the se xton, clear edge power. it goes on and on and ... david robotic robotics inc., a e journalist here.

this is quite a list of people. it shows the breadth of our great nation. the green energy czar at google is involved here, the cisco systems, jeff weinberger, the sustained energy elite over there, the wells fargo private bank, solar project developers and on and on. and i ask that this letter be placed in the record. and it's very, very clear that senator murkowski's amendment is causing a ripple throughout the country. it is causing a firestorm of protest among doctors, among scientists, among business precedent to overturn science. leaders who feel it is a bad it is hard for me to believe in this century that that's what we would be doing. so, mr. president, i'm going to sum up here and say this: i want to really -- oh, i'm going to place some op-eds --

editorials, actually, from various newspapers into the record at this time. one from "the new york times" dated actually two days ago, ms. murkowski's mischief. and she -- they're basically saying -- which i thought was interesting -- "senator lisa murkowski's home state of alaska is ever-so-slowly melting away, courtesy of a warming planet yet few elected officials seem more determined than thee to throw sand into the obama administration's efforts to do something about climate change." and it is unbelievable -- and they go on to say this. that if she chooses to overturn this endangerment finding, they say, "quote, "wree rescinding the finding would repudiate years of work by american scientists and public health experts." mr. chairman, i think this is important. the work that has been done

leading up to this even dangerment finding -- leading up to this endangerment finding was done by republican and democratic administrations alike. to just throw it out. this resolution makes no sense at all. i know senator baucus is here on the floor. he served as chairman of the environment and public works committee. he took -- he took very important role in framing a letter where we lay out why this is a very bad idea. i wanted to thank him for that. and i would ask unanimous consent to place into the record this letter that senator baucus worked so hard on with his staff where, you know, we -- here's what we say. i think it is important, and then i'll put the letter in the record. "the u.s. e.p.a. recently issued a finding that greenhouse gas emissions larms the public welfare. the supreme court ruled that greenhouse gas emissions were covered under the clean air act.

and then we go on to say, debating policy choices regarding the appropriate response to unchecked climate change ask fair and the senate will continue to evaluate the best tools for addressing greenhouse gas emissions but repealing an endangerment finding based upon years of work by america's scientists and public health experts is not appropriate, and we urge a no vote." and i'd ask that letter be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: "the washington post" said about the murkowski amendment, "hobbling the e.p.a. isn't the right course. the correct response is to provide a better alternative," but obviously they're not in favor of overturning an endangerment finding. "the scranton times tribune," very important, i think

editorial. there should be little debate on the premise that cleaner air is healthier. and i think that's really what we're saying. the scientists are saying, let's clean up the carbon and have healthier air. "the st. louis post dispatch" has a very, very good -- very good editorial here. and they also come out against this kind of a move by senator murkowski and big oil and big coal, and they feel this vote is a very, very important vote. so in summary, i would just say this: i don't want the american people to misunderstand what is before us in this resolution that will be coming up for a vote at a time determined by senator murkowski, as i understand it, under the rules. she is using the rules to be able to do this.

i don't think the american people should be misled into thinking this is about postponing action on cleaning up carbon pollution. it's about something much deeper than that. if her resolution passes and if it does become the law of the land -- and i hope and i don't believe that it will at the end of the day -- what she is doing is something unprecedented, and what that unprecedented move is s. is to overturn a finding made by the scientists and the health experts on the impacts of carbon pollution. this has never been done before. senators play the role of senators. they don't play the role of doctors. they don't play the role of scientists. because, i'll tell youings if we start doing that there's no end to what we could do. we could overturn action, you

know, on controlling the nicotine in cigarettes. we could overturn action on controlling the lead allowed in paint. we could overturn the science based on limits of -- for ar seineic in water. and i could go on and on and list all the toxins -- cadmium, carbon detain tra chloride, talvine -- it goes on. and that's why this is such a dangerous turn of events here. i am very much up for a debate on the best way, the best way to solve this problem of too much carbon pollution in the air. and we differ. some of us have one idea. some have another. that's why i'm so hopeful that senators kerry and graham and lieberman, with all of us working in the background, can come up with the 60 votes necessary. but make no mistake about it, we shouldn't start down the path of

overturning a health finding thafinding.that is not why we we electing. if i could just speak for my constituents, my constituents sent me here. they want me to protect the health and safety of the people. and that's what i intend to do. and i am very, very proud of the doctors who have come forward today. i met with one in my office just about an hour ago. and they're going to strand with us, and they're going to tell the truth about this. and the american people will judge who's on their side. and that's up to them. they'll make that decision. so, mr. president, i'm so grateful for your patience. i've put many things into the record. i've spoken much longer than i normally dovment i'm sure to the chagrin of a few people on the other side -- which i understand how they feel. but i felt it important to lay out how serious i think this is, not that i think at the end of the day it will become the law, but because i love serving in

the united states senate. i love the work we do. and one of the things we shouldn't do is overturn science and public health experts. and that's what -- exactly what the murkowski amendment does. so i yield the floor. i know senator gregg will be speaking, and we have a slot reserved for a democrat after that conclusion. thank you very much. i yield the floor. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana is recognized. mr. baucus: under the previous order, the senator from new hampshire, i believe, is to have the floor, but ider if he'd yield for just a second for a unanimous consent request? mr. gregg: yes, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. baucus: mr. president, for mr. dodd, senator dodd asks consent that -- if he were here, i do so in his behalf, that deborah katz, a member of his staff, be grarchltsed floor privileges for the consideration

of h.j. resolution 45. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from new hampshire is recognized. mr. gregg: thank you. i rise to support the amendment offered by senator conrad, which i'm a primary sponsor of, to address what is the second-biggest threat our nation faces. clearly the largest threat our nation faces is the fact that a terrorist that wishes to do us harm might get his or her hands on weapon of mass destruction and use it against us. that is our nation's greatest threat. but after that, the biggest threat to this country is our fiscal situation, and the fact that we are on a path where our nation will go into bankruptcy because we will not be able to pay the debts which we are running up. you dot to believe me on that. this is not exaggeration any longer. this is not hyperbole pour the

purpose of political events. this is just the way the numbers work. just the way the numbers work. this year, by the end of this year our public debt will exceed 60% of g.d.p. that's known has a tipping point when you owe that much money compared to how much you produce as a nation. 60% is considered the tipping point towards an unsustainable situation. within 10 years -- i actually think it will occur sooner -- our public debt will cross the 90% threshold. when you get into those ranges, you're basically in a situation like a dog chasing its tail. there's no way to catch yourself. there's no way to catch up with the amount of debt you're putting on the books. the cost of bearing that debt eats up your resources as a nation.

it takes away from your productivity and your prosperity. you know, this is not hierks as i said. this is just real honest projections on numbers which we already know exist. the proposal from the president of the last budget, which we are now functioning under, projects $1 trillion of deficit every year for the next ten years. we are today taking up a debt ceiling increase, which is proposed to be $1.9 trillion. that's the increase, taking the debt of our nation up to $14 trillion. and it's not the end of these requests for debt ceiling increases because we know the debt is going to continue to jump by over $1 trillion a year every year. -- as we move forward. this chart here reflects the severity of the situation. historically, the federal government has used about 20% of

the gross national product, that's what we cost of the american people as a government. just three programs -- medicare, social security, and medicaid -- by the year about 2030 will represent spending that exceeds 20% of the gross national product, so everything else in the federal government, if we were to maintain our unusual spending level, couldn't be done -- our national defense, education, building roads -- all of those sorts of things couldn't be done. but that doesn't stop there. those three programs, the cost goes up astronomically as we go out into the future. and to pay nor those costs, we have to run up the debt of the united states at a rate that we have never seen. it will double in five years, it will triple in ten years. those are hard numbers.

our debt, as i said, will pass the 60% threshold. why is that considered a tipping point? because to get into the european union, which is a group of industrialized states, they have a threshold which you can't be above. a nation cannot have a public debt that exceeds 60% of g.d.p. it can't have deficits that exceed 3% of g.d.p. our deficits for the next ten years will be between 4.5% and 5% -- 5.5% of g.d.p. and as i said, the public debt will be up around 90% of g.d.p. by 2019. so we know we're on an unsustainable course. what's the effect of that? what happens when we get our debt up so high? there are only two scenarios for our nation. one, we devalue the currency. that means inflation. that's a terrible thing to do to a nation. it takes everybody's savings and basically cuts them by whatever

the inflation rate is. it means your currency can't buy as much as it used to. it means you can't be as productive a nation because you have an inflationary problem. or alternatively, you have to raise taxes at a rate which you essentially suffocate people's willingness to go out and create jobs and be productive, take risks, and you take the money that should have been used for the purposes of taking risks and building that local restaurant or that small business and creating jobs and you move it over to pay debt. where do you send it? you send it to china because they own most of our debt. or you send it to saudi arabia because they're the second-biggest owner of our debt. instead of investing it in the united states to make us more productive. either scenario, a massive increase in tax burden to pay debt or inflation leads to a

lower standard of living for our children. so as a very practical matter, what is going to happen here to our nation under the facts which we know already exist is that we will, for the first time, pass on to the next generation a nation which is less prosperous, where there's less opportunity for our children and where the standard of living goes down rather than up. that's not acceptable. it's not fair. it's not right for one generation to do that to another. so we have to get our fiscal house in order. now, many would argue, well, that's your job. that's why we sent you to congress. do your job. get the fiscal house in order. limit spending. that would be the position of our saoeufpltd and the other side's position -- of our side, and the other side's position would probably be to raise taxes. we know regular order does not

work. why? because we've seen that. we've seen that it does not work. we know that when you make proposals around here on these big issues of public policies, specifically entitlement programs or tax reform, that you are immediately attacked if you make them on entitlement issues and you're a republican, you're attacked from the left as trying to savage senior citizens. and if you make a proposal on tax reform, you're attacked from the right as trying to increase taxes on working americans. usually those attacks are filled with hyperbole and gross misrepresentations in many instances. people send out these fund-raising letters. if you ever say anything about social security as a republican as to how it can be reformed to be made more solvent, there is immediately hear that goes out from this group called citizens to protect social security or some other motherhood name that looks like a social security check and goes to social

security recipients and says if you don't send us $25 today, senator gregg is going to savage your social security payments. so that little group in washington takes in a lot of money -- doesn't do anything to effect social security money, but they have a good time going around the city with the money it makes. in the process the well gets poisoned and nothing can happen around here. and that's what happens: nothing happens. nothing happens. well, you know, that was maybe manageable for awhile but it's not manageable any longer. we're headed towards a wall as a nation. we're headed toward an event where we will eventually be insolvent as a country. we'll become a banana republic taoeufp situation where we can't meet the obligations of our debt. and the people to whom we owe money, many of whom are chinese, are going to say i'm not going

to lend you any more money america because i don't think you can pay it back because you've got too much debt. that's where we're headed. and we know it there. it used to be over the horizon, and so the congress never worried about it. it's not over the horizon anymore. we passed the 60% threshold just this year. we will pass it this year and we'll hit 90% within this budget cycle, ten-year budget cycle. regular order has not worked. some may tkpwaourbgs well, the health care bill -- some may argue, well, the health care bill was regular order. that sure didn't work. folks, that didn't work, you know. it sent the cost curve up. it took resources which should have been used to address the medicare insolvency situation and moved them over to create a new entitlement. it didn't work. regular order has not worked around here because the politics don't allow it to work.

the intensity of the community that defends these various issues won't allow constructive activity to occur under regular order. so senator conrad and i came to the conclusion, since regular order doesn't work and since we know we're headed towards this cliff, shouldn't we do something? shouldn't we try some other approach? think outside the box? the conclusion senator conrad and i came to in a bipartisan way, because he's the chairman of the budget committee -- i'm ranking -- was let's set up a procedure which leads to policy, which leads to a vote, and guarantees that that procedure is absolutely fair, absolutely bipartisan in its execution. so i can't game members of the democratic side. so the american people can look at the process and say that's fair. that's bipartisan. i have some confidence in that.

and so this commission which is proposed in this amendment does exactly that. it sets up a bipartisan, fair process, requiring supermajorities to produce policy and get a vote on those policies under fast track. and let me get into a couple of specifics. there are 18 members on this commission. they're all -- they all have their fingers or responsibility on the buttons around here. there will be 16 people from the congress and two people from the administration, 10 democrats, 8 republicans. the republicans will be appointed by the republican leadership, the democrats by the democratic leadership. so the membership of this committee, everybody knows, will be people who reflect the philosophical views of the leaderships of the two parties. that group will meet and have public hearings, and they'll have an advisory group that has the constituencies that will

want to be heard on this that will give them input. there will be a lot of public input. then that group will have to come to a conclusion on the big issues that affect fiscal policies in this country. the point here is that neither side is going to come to the table on this unless everybody is on the table. if i say no taxes on the table, why would anybody on the other side come to the table? if they say no entitlement reform on the table, why would anybody on our side come to the table? everything is on the table. of course the interest of the different parties on the issues like taxes and entitlements are protected by the way the membership of the commission is appointed. obviously the republican leader isn't going to appoint to this commission people who are going to go off on some tangent on tax policy which will be unacceptable to republicans. and the same is true of the democratic leader relative to entitlement reform. so the commission is made up of a balanced and fair approach. and when it reports, 14 of the

18 people have to vote for it. 14 of the 18. neither side can game the other because the majority of both sides have to be for whatever the report is. okay? then it comes to the congress, and 60% of the congress has to vote for it. so neither side can be gamed. it has to be balance. it is an up-or-down vote on the proposal. no amendments. why no amendments? that's been a point of controversy. some people say you've got to be able to amend it. no amendments because we all know what amendments are for on an issue like this. they're for hiding in the corners. that's what members do with amendments. they offer their amendment. it doesn't pass. then they say i can't vote for this, my amendment didn't pass. it's called the hide in the corner approach. that's why we don't have amendments. it's up or down. and the theory, of course, is that the membership of this commission is going to be balanced -- which it will be. it's not theory.

it's reality. will be balanced. it will be bipartisan. it will be players who understand these issues in a very substantive way -- two of them on the floor right now who i'm sure will be members of the commission, which i'm not one of them. and as a very practical matter, the results will be something that's politically doable. will it be a magic wand that corrects the whole issue of this pending outyear insolvency of our country? no, absolutely not. but will it be a significant statement by the congress of the united states that we recognize the seriousness of the situation we're in as a nation? that we recognize it is not fair for one general traoeugs do this to -- general traoeugs do this -- one general traoeugs to another nation? it will be a message on all those points and it will be a positive message. the markets will react by saying they're trying. the american people will react by saying thank god there's

finally a bipartisan effort to try to do something around here on this issue. and sure it won't be the magic wand or the magic bullet that solves everything, but it will be a significant step, i suspect. i have confidence the persons who serve on this commission will be committed to that. i realize this is outside the regular order, but the simple fact is if we stand on regular order around here, we're going to go through a trapped door because we're not going to stand up to the issues that are critical to making us, putting us back on the road to solvency. and so this is a proposal that is serious. it is bipartisan. and it has a fair amount of support -- 34 cosponsors. very issue to have that many cosponsors around here on anything. and they're bipartisan. it's about half-and-half. i think it's 14-20. so i would hope that my

colleagues would vote for this. i understand that we're -- that my colleagues are hearing, on our side of the aisle they're hearing from a number of very credible people that they oppose this because they're worried about the tax side. and i understand on the other side of the aisle they're hearing from credible constituency groups because they're concerned about the impact on entitlements. maybe that means we got it right. we got all these folks who are interest-group driven who are opposing it. i think it means we got it rhode island and i believe this is -- we got it right. i think this is becoming our last chance to get something done here tha*t, that the course we're on now is coming to the point of being irreversible unless we do something like this. and i don't believe it's correct, as i said, for one generation of political leaders to pass a country that will be in total fiscal disarray on to

the next generation. we have a responsibility to act, and this is a way to act. mr. president, i appreciate the courtesy of the members of the floor and yield the floor. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana is recognized. mr. baucus: i'd say we're expecting the senator from connecticut, mr. dodd, to arrive shortly. when he does, i'll yield to him. mr. president, i want to also respond briefly to the senator from new hampshire and start by talking about where we agree. it's always good when we're discussing somebody for anybody to look where there's agreement. whether it's agreement that builds trust in bills that are standing. then it's possible there can be even greater agreement. we clearly agree it is unhealthy for the government to be running these huge deficits. i think everyone in this body

agrees on that point. it's unsustainable, as many have said. why are we running these big deficits? we're doing so, frankly, because of mistakes made through the financial crisis prompted by the subprime mortgage crisis and also because we're in the middle of a deep recession. that is why these deficits are so large. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. it is something that unfortunately had to be done. we had to come up with money to combine economic stability to this country. when we're in reserbgs unemployment -- recession, unemployment rates are higher and we enacted programs on top of that to help the economy. that's why we're facing these huge deficits. they've grown very significantly in the last several years for those reasons. so there's no agreement, a, we have large deficits. and, b, we have to reduce those

deficits. and i think there's agreement on why we came to this place and have these deficits is for the reasons i just suggested. we also agree, very much agree that we have to reduce these deficits in future years. there's tremendous agreement on that point. we also agreed that it would be better for the government to reduce our -- our annual deficits to below 3% of gross domestic product. there's agreement on that. most observers -- economic observers and experts think once we get to 3%, our deficits reach 3% of gross domestic product, that's not so bad. it's going to take a little effort to get there. but, again, we're where we are because of the recession, because of the financial crisis that occurred in the last several years. where we disagree, though, as -- as -- is over the way we respond. we disagree over the powers that

the senator from new hampshire wishes to turn over to somebody else, over to a -- to a commission. we disagree on that point. i don't think we should turn the powers that senators and house members have over to -- to some other body to -- to something called a commission. the senator from new hampshire has such a procedure. that's what this is all about in some respect is to turn this -- this decision making over to somebody else so that senators can say they did it. you know, they made me do it. he and the senator from north dakota propose a commission, for example, with a fast-track process that would absolve a senator's responsibility for any amendment. senators could simply throw up their hands and say, well, the commission made me do it. it sounds like all of us as parents heard something similar from our kids. you know, dad, something made me

do it. i'll never forget my son many, many, many years ago said, well, dad, it just seemed so good. someone else suggested that i do it and i couldn't say no. but on matters as important as social security for seniors, and medicare and medicaid for americans who have health concerns, matters as important as the tax rates the government will oppose on american families, on those important matters i think we need an open process that -- that -- that -- where senators and house members can participate and offer suggestions and amendments. on things that important i do not think we need a procedural shortcut. sometimes the most important things are difficult to do. and i think most members of congress and -- in the senate ran for these jobs expected there to be some tough choices,

expected to be some tough times. i don't think they wanted procedural shortcuts. when the procedural shortcuts, often they're unintended consequences, when they're procedural shortcuts, often bad things happen, often not thought out or thought through in important. think rather we should have full and open debate. there is fewer surprises with full and open debates one where senators can amend and approve. that's why i think the gregg and conrad amendment is a bad idea. there are alternatives to that proposal. one is that we do it ourselves we do what we should do. we do what's right. but there's also another alternative, an alternative where -- one in which the vice president -- especially vice president is -- is working on that sets up a -- an executive commission, not a statutory commission as outlined by the senators from new hampshire and north dakota, but, rather, one

where the vice president will -- has convened discussions on and then that proposal, the vice president's proposed executive order where the president will create a commission to consider our fiscal situation. it would have similar composition, similar powers to the statutory commission offered by senators conrad and gregg. but there's only one difference and that's the difference in the process. the vice president's proposal, l which i think the president will announce fairly shortly will preserve the rules of the senate. the conrad-gregg amendment will not. it is approving the rules of the senate that i think make all the difference. under the proposal offered by the president, that is the executive commission, again, i think it's 18 members, all subjects are considered, report back to the congress, taken

after the elections. everything is very, very similar if not exactly the same. though the difference is that under the -- under the president's executive commission when -- if proposed, i think it will be, there's no requirement to fast-track process as required by the -- by the statutory commission. so i tell my colleagues there are other alternatives. there are other ways to address our -- reach our budget deficits. i urge my colleagues to join in support for the vice president's amendment and oppose the conrad-gregg amendment. are we waiting for -- the senator from connecticut is not here? maybe the senator -- oh, he is here.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, today the united states senate will have an opportunity to indicate to the american people whether they are listening to the american people. because we're going to have an opportunity to vote on a debt limit bill later, but earlier -- before that on a series of amendment, the first amendment is an amendment that i am offering along with senator vitter from louisiana, senator bennett from utah have worked extensively on this and they have been down here and spoke on in this morning as have a number of my colleagues. what is important about this amendment is that it will give an indication to the american people about whether or not their voices are heard here in washington as expressed by the voters in massachusetts. because what i think they were saying in that vote a couple of days ago was, we are frustrated. we are concerned about the level at which washington is spending and taxing and borrowing and we want the brakes put on that.

well, i have an amendment that i offer to the debt limit today that would end the tarp program. and i think it's a very straightforward way in which we can signal to the american people that we're serious about fiscal responsibility. and i would say just by way of context, mr. president, that if you look at what is being proposed here with this debt limit increase, it's to ad add $1.9 trillion to the debt limit for our country. $1.9 trillion. now, remember, we already raised the debt limit before we the left for the christmas holiday by $290 billion. if you add that to th the $1.9 trillion, we will have added over $2 trillion to the debt limit in the last 30 days. now, bear in mind that the entire federal budget a decade ago did not exceed that amount of money. we will add more to the debt limit in this vote, coupled with a vote that we made 30 days ago than spent in the entire federal

budget a decade ago. that is remarkable, mr. president. i think it speaks to the whole issue of the amount of spending and growth of government in washington, d.c., which has the american taxpayer very concerned and i think with good reason. in fact, if you look at what happened in the last several years starting from 2008 to 2010 of this year, if you take the end of 2008, the amount of money spent in the appropriations bill here in washington, and you go to the 2009 appropriations bill and the 2010 appropriations bill, over that time period the entire government grew by 16.8% over a two-year period. 16.8%, and that's excluding defense and federal funding much that's the non-defense discretionary spending. that outpaces inflation and the growth in our economy. just to put in perspective, inflation in that same period, 2009 to 2010 was 3.5%. we grew government spending by 16.8%. that is stunning.

how does any american taxpayer out there who is in this recession trying to figure out how to balance their budget, how to pay their bills and how to go about the process of tightening their belts, understand how a federal government can spen spend $16 -- 16.8%, grow the size of government here in washington, d.c., when inflation in the country at that -- over that same time period was 3.5%. these are some pretty stunning and remarkable numbers. and i think that's why you're seeing all of this angst at the grassroots level around this country about the direction the country's heading. and the peril that is putting future generations in if we continue on this path unabated and we don't do something about spending and we don't do something about the massive amount of borrowing and expansion of government. i think that people are reacting, mr. president, to the process by which congress conducts its business. i think the -- the idea that you would have to pass legislation by including special provisions for individual senators, the

so-called cornhusker kickback, the louisiana purchase, where individual deals were made in back rooms to get the support for individual senators to vote for the health care bill is something that the american people find objectionable. i think that's what they're objecting to and voicing with their disgust with the way that washington operates. the reason we're asking for a $1.9 trillion increase in the debt limit and the reason we have a debt that next year will exceed 16% of the gross domestic product which would keep us from getting into the european union is because we continue to spend and spend and spend and borrow and use a lot of accounting gimmicks here in washington, d.c., to disguise and shield the amount of borrowing and spending going on here. a good example of that, mr. president, was the health care bill, which we've been debating now for the last several months and it has passed the house of representatives, it has passed senate. it is now in discussions --

negotiations going on between the leaders in the house and the senate. and i'm not sure. we haven't been privy to those either what the state of play is with regard to the health care bill. but i think it's important to know that there were a lot of things in that bill that were designed to understate its true cost. it said that it would only cost $1 trillion over the first 10 years. if you look at the fully implemented cost, because it was front-end loaded some of the tax increases and back loaded some of the spending because it used various accounting gimmicks to understate the cost of it, if you look at the fully implemented kos over 10 years it was, in fact, $2.5 trillion. i think those numbers are starting to sink in with the american people. one of the things that was done in the health care bill, and i think it is an -- this is an example of some of the things, things that happen, processes, procedure that's happen in washington, d.c., that defy logic and difficult to explain to the american people and one example of that is the way that

the medicare issue was debated and handled with regard to the health care debate. about half a trillion dollars in medicare cuts were proposed along with a medicare tax increase of.9% of 1% to pay for the new $2.5 trillion in spending. well, the argument was made by the other side that this, in fact, extended the life span of medicare because it was -- the cuts to medicare and the revenue increases were somehow going to extend the life span of medicare. but i thought was interesting about that is the senator from alabama asked a question at the congressional budget office toward the end of that debate about this -- how can you count this as paying for the new entitlement program, the new health care program and still say you're extending the life span of medicare? obviously you can't use the money twiesms so in response to that question, the congressional budget office issued a statement, it said: the key point is that the savings to the h.i. trust fund, the medicare trust fund, under the health care bill would be received by the government only once so it

cannot be set aside to pay for future medicare spending and at the same time pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs. they went on to say that the unified budget accounting shows that the majority of the h.i. trust fund savings would be used to pay for other spending under the health care bill and would not enhance the ability of the government to redeem the bonds credited to the trust fund, the medicare trust fund, to pay for future medicare benefits. to describe the full amount of h.i. trust fund savings as both improving the government's 80 -- ability to pay for future medicare benefits and pay for finances -- financing outside of medicare would double count a large share of those savings and overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal position. that is an example of the unique accounting mechanisms used by the government in washington, d.c. emr. dodd: would you yield? mr. thune: i will yield when i'm

through making remarks. i want to speak to the tarp amendment if i might do that. i will be happy to yield to him at the conclusion of my remarks. i want to say that, mr. president, i know what the chairman is going to see. he's going to say that the c.b.o. will say that it will extend the life span of medicare and it did and would under the mechanisms used in the budget when it -- mr. dodd: since he's raising the subject -- mr. thune: i will as -- mr. dodd: the same c.b.o. letter also say that the health care bill that passed the senate would reduce the budget deficit? i mean the senator's throwing out the big figure it's going to cost $2 trillion and so on and -- mr. baucus: i don't know where the senator got that figure because the congressional budget office in that same letter or -- in that -- in that letter in an earlier letter and in a subsequent letter reaffirmed that the bill that passed the senate cuts the budget deficit by $132 billion in the first 10 years and cuts the budget

deficit by between $650 an and $1.3 trillion in the next 10 years. that's what the letter says. and the actuaries say that the bill extends the life of the medicare trust fund five or six more years. maybe more than that. isn't it true -- isn't it true that the c.b.o. letter said that the -- said the senate bill reduces the budget deficit b by $132 billion and reduces it in the second 10 years b by $650 billion to $1.3 trillion. isn't that true? mr. thune: the c.b.o. number has been a bit of a loving target. at the end of the debate they adjusted by a half trillion dollars the amount they considered the deficit would be reduced. but i would point out to the senator from montana that, yes, the c.b.o. said -- because they are using the trust fund accounting conventions that we use here in washington, d.c., and that's my whole point. my point is i'm not disputing what the c.b.o. has said because legally they are correct. because of the way that we do

under a unified budget accounting in the trust funds, but as a practical matter, as an economic matter, what the c.b.o. is saying in the statement that they issued here is you can't double count the money, and it is spending the same money twice. you're creating a new entitlement program which is under the c.b.o.'s estimate a trillion dollars over the first plan but when it's implemented implemented $2.5 trillion. mr. baucus: frankly it's a bogus issue. it sound good on the face, but it's meant to confuse people. even subsequent -- to the statement about the double accounting, even subsequent to that isn't it true the c.b.o. same out with a subsequent letter that said still the budget deficit is reduced by 132 in the first ten years and 650 to 1.3 in the next ten years? mr. thune: the c.b.o. came out and said the budget deficit would be reduced by $132 billion over the first ten years, but the point i made earlier is that included, of course, a lot of gimmicks that were used, including taxes that began

immediately, spending that doesn't occur until four years later, counting revenue from -- for example, not taking care of the physician fee increase which we know is a $250 billion to to $300 billion cost that at some point the government is going to have to deal with as well as creating a new entitlement program called the class act under which the c.b.o. assumed about $72 billion of savings in the first ten years, which they also said would generate deficits in the out years. so the senator from montana may be correct legally under the conventions that are used in trust fund accounting under a unified budget, but as a practical matter -- and this is what i think the american people understand and what as an economic matter i understand -- you cannot use the same revenue twice, and if you've got revenues coming in from medicare cuts and medicare payroll tax increases and you're saying we are going to use those to finance this expansion, this new health care entitlement and at the same time we're going to use those to preserve and extend the life span of medicare, most

people would say you can't do that, and what the c.b.o. said in this statement was it is double counting, it is spending the same revenue twice, and that is the practical implication of this, notwithstanding the weird gimmicks and the way that washington, d.c. goes about accounting for revenues in a unified budget that go into trust funds. because essentially what's happening is you're issuing an i.o.u. to the medicare trust fund and also taking those revenues and say we're going to spend them to finance the new health care entitlement. you can't spend the same money twice. people in south dakota know that. i think people in montana know that, but that's why they are so frustrated about this process. they see this thing dragging on and all this don't going on and all these different numbers being thrown out there, but the fact of the matter is we are creating a massive new government entitlement program under health care with all kinds of new spending. financed with tax increases and medicare cuts that are supposed to be used to finance the new health care entitlement but are also being credited to the medicare trust fund and thereby being used for two purposes.

you can't do that. but that -- that point is -- is one of the reasons, i think, that most americans become so cynical about washington, d.c. they get very frustrated with what they see is all these -- this washington, d.c., talk and accounting gimmicks and budget techniques that are used to disguise this amount of spending which has led taos where we're having to raise the debt limit by $1.9 trillion. face it, that's the simple reality we face today. we'll have a vote if not this week but next week on this legislation which would increase the amount of the debt limit in this country by $1.9 trillion. my amendment to this -- to this legislation, mr. president, as i said before, is fairly straightforward. it would end the tarp program. the troubled asset relief program which was created toward the end of 2008 was designed specifically to bring financial stability to the country at the time when we were worried about imminent financial collapse. there was a concern at the time that there was great systemic

risk to our financial system and as a consequence of that, action was taken, authority was given to the treasury to acquire the distressed nonperforming assets on the balance sheets of many of our banks. what has happened since that time, it has morphed into something entirely different. it's been used now to take equity positions, to take ownership stakes in more and more companies in this country. whether it's financial services companies, insurance companies, auto manufacturers. we have gotten very far afield from what the purpose of the tarp program was in the first place. and so far as where we are today, we have -- out of that that $700 billion in authority, i have got a pie chart here that shows what has been spent and what's left. the blue represents the amount of the tarp program, program, $700 billion that has been committed or spent already. that's about $545 billion. that's what the blue represents. the other side of the chart here, the line part and the orange part, represent the amount that has not been spent or has been paid back. the amount that has not been spent is about $155 billion.

the amount that has been paid back is about $165 billion. you have roughly $320 billion that to date is unobligated balances in the tarp account. now, what my amendment would do is say that that amount, that that $320 billion, can't be spent. it ends. and the reason for that, mr. president, is because we are concerned that there is -- that this fund is going to be used for all types of purposes for which it was not intended. most recently, the house of representatives passed the stimulus two bill, the second stimulus bill, which is going to use as an offset this authority right here. and what we're simply saying is that this is $320 billion that we can save the taxpayers of this country, that we can keep from piling on debt to future generations and keep from adding to the total amount of borrowing that we're doing. so let's stop, let's end this program today, not allow this this $320 billion to be spent, and further stipulate that anything here in the blue, the

the $545 billion that is currently spent or committed, if paid back, would go to reduce the federal debt rather than be recycled and respent and reused again. very straightforward, very simple amendment, but i think very important in terms of the message it sends to the american people about whether or not we're serious about what this tarp program was created for in the first place. its specific statutory purpose, and whether we're going to deviate from that and use it for all other types of spending and ideas that people here in washington, d.c., might come up with. so, mr. president, i hope that my colleagues today will support this amendment. i happen to believe that the tarp program has served its purpose. the treasury had an opportunity to extend it at the end of last year, at the end of december of last year. they chose not to -- they chose to extend it. now this thing runs until october of this year. my fear is that this amount of money here, this $320 billion, is going to get spent but it's not going to get spent for the

purposes that it was intended to be spent for under the tarp authority but rather for all kinds of other things that people, politicians here in washington might come up with. and also that this blue amount here, those funds that are already committed or spent, when they are paid back -- and we hope they will be, although there is some question now about whether or not we're going to see a lot of that money paid back -- but assuming that it is, that that money not be recycled or respent but it be used to retire the federal debt. that would reduce the total amount by which we would have to raise the debt limit. we're serious about getting this debt under control, we're serious about getting spending under control. this is a very straightforward way to do that. and so we're going to have this vote, mr. president, hopefully later today, sometime this afternoon, and we can save the american taxpayer $320 billion buy not spending this amount of money right here, and we can hopefully, as these are paid back, save a whole lot more for the american taxpayers, and i would urge my colleagues here in the united states senate to support this amendment and to

restore some sense of fiscal discipline to the way that we do business here the floor. the presiding officer: thut i recognized. mr. dodd: i thank the presiding officer. mr. president, i have two subject matters that i wish to address. one is the amendment of my friend and colleague from south dakota, senator thune, that he has just addressed in his remarks, and a second set of remarks regarding haiti that i also want to address. i chair the subcommittee of the foreign relations committee dealing with the western hemisphere. it obviously includes the nation of haiti. and well as served as a peace corps volunteer some 40 years on the island of hispaniola on the border between haiti and the dominican republic. so aside from the interest we all have in what's happened to the thousands of haitians as a result of this catastrophic

earthquake that's occurred, i have many friends in that country, some of whom i have not heard from in the last week or so, who are lost at this point, and i want to address some thoughts on that subject matter as well. but i want to, first of all, if i can, address the subject matter of the thune amendment, which will be voted on i gather at some point either today or tomorrow, whenever that's going to be dealt with here. let me begin by first of all thanking my friend from south dakota. he mentioned a moment ago, and i applaud him for saying so, that while it was a controversial debate a year ago last fall whether or not to have an emergency economic stabilization program, i remember the night that we all gathered here and sat at our desks in this chamber and voted 75-24 whether or not to commit as much as potentially potentially $700 billion in order to stabilize our financial institutions and move forward. it was a courageous vote that a number of our colleagues took that day, mr. president, many of whom were up for re-election within a matter of days after that vote and yet vast ballots in favor of it despite the

tremendous outpouring of anger, over the fact that we were in those economic circumstances to begin with and secondly that we might be committing much of american taxpayer money to stabilize our financial institutions. i happen to believe and i think history is proving to be so that we made the right choice that evening. that even though it was a painful vote, had we not stabilized those financial institutions, i firmly believe that we would be looking at a far more catastrophic set of economic problems both here and around the globe had we not acted. while those resources have gone to largein to be done, there is an understandable degree of anger and frustration being expressed by our fellow citizenry because people on main street, average citizens have suffered terribly during this process. there was a point not many months ago where 20,000 jobs a day were being lost in our nation. 14,000 people a day were lazioing their health care. 10,000 people a day were losing their homes in the united states to foreclosure. and so the american people have suffered terribly as a result of

this economic crisis, but we needed to take those steps we did. and as a result today, while the news is still far from good in most corners of this country, we are stabilizing an economic crisis, avoided a depression which we were on the brink of falling into had we not taken that action. so i want to commend my colleague from south dakota for recognizing the value of that decision. now, he points out with the chart, and it's not up here any longer, about the fact that there is about $320 billion which remain unexpended as a result of those -- that decision. the good news is that we crafted that bill that required two separate votes, an initial one for the $350 billion, and then around january of this year -- or last year, excuse me, the additional $350 billion would be appropriated or spent. now, as a result of the good news, we've avoided having to expend all those resources, and as a result, there is actually money coming back in. we have now recouped about

about $165 billion of the original money that was spent, including over $13 billion in fees and interest payments that were earned back by the federal government as a result of those decisions. now, we all hope that the full amount will be recovered and there will be an opportunity in the coming days for all of us here to vote on whether or not we ought to ask those large financial institutions which were the beneficiary of taxpayer assistance whether or not they're going to vote for a fee or a tax, if you will, over a limited number of years on those recipients of billions of dollars of american taxpayer money to pay that back through fees and taxes, and i hope my colleagues will be supportive of the initiative offered by president obama in recent days. but the issue before us is whether or not we ought to shut all of this program down, the remaining $320 billion that were there. i want to remind my colleagues that what the administration has suggested and i believe all of us have embraced is that small business and our community banks in this country are struggling.

i don't recall a day over the last number of months when i haven't heard a speech on the floor of this chamber where a men and member hasn't gotten up and talked about what's happened in the absence of credit flowing to smaller businesses in their states or that community banks in their states are failing because the economy has not reached them, the improving economy. what the administration has suggested and that i strongly support, as i believe most of us do here, is that we need to get assistance and support into these smaller businesses and to these community banks in order that they can survive and get on their feet and credit will flow where it isn't flowing today. the administration has sent a letter committing to limit the use of these dollars to mitigating foreclosures, which is still serious, support for small banks soy they can -- so they can lend to their communities, facilitate small business lending, and lessen the crisis to the mortgage banks. those are the four obligations we're talking about. it's not unlimited.

it's not all for ideas that may be floating around here that have little or no merit. it's specifically in the areas that we all know we need to provide help in. we can do this one of two ways. we can do it by appropriating additional money which goes right to the heart of my colleague and friend from south dakota's argument. we cannot afford to do that. again, the deficits are growing larger by the hour, and to appropriate additional moneys at a time like this would be very difficult, if not unwise in many cases. or we can take resources we've already appropriated that are not being spent that could be used exactly for the purposes that are needed for our economy to get moving again. in a sense, it's a catch-22. our economy is only going to improve if small business starts hiring again, community banks start flowing credit again, we minimize the foreclosure problem. now, how do you do it? it doesn't happen magically, mr. president. it happens because we make intelligent decisions. now, a ye

now -- now, a year ago when we voted for the economic stabilization bill, the problem in front of us was the stabilization of financial institutions. and so the resources were going to be limited for that purpose. we thought we might need $700 billion. the good news is, we haven't needed that amount and a substantial amount of the money we did expend is coming back in. now, there remains this pool of $320 billion in that fund. wouldn't it make sense if, in fact, we're trying to get this economy moving again, to take some of those resources and make it available to small business, to community banks to flow credit so they can actually hire people and grow again, to minimize foreclosures in the country? that's what's needed to be done. now, you can do it one way or the other but you can't do it by just talking about it. and so i besiege my colleagues at this juncture and hour not to vote in favor of this amendment which would deprive us of the resources in order to do the things that all of us agree need to be done. because i know that my friends, most of them here, are not going

to be voting for a program that requires additional appropriations for the very argument the author of the amendment has made: we can't afford to do it. well, if we're wanted going to do that -- well, if we're not going to do and yet we're simultaneously saying we need to do these things in order to get us out of this hole where average businesses and workers on main street in the country can be the beneficiary of some of this help to get our economy moving, where does it come from? where are the resources going to come from? why not take some of these resources and dedicate them to exactly the purposes that have been identified by the administration and commended -- or recommended by members of this body, both republicans and democrats. if you support the thune amendment, you deprive us of that opportunity. we're being told by our friends over here we're not going to support. so again, what happens is a lot of rhetoric, a lot of talk. and at the very hour after all the help that's gone into the

major wall street institutions, at the very hour that we ought to be trying to help main street institutions, these smaller banks, smaller businesses, we will not have the resources to do it. so i urge my colleagues to think long and hard about this, that while this program has been terribly unpopular for all the reasons you've heard from others, at this critical moment, at a time when we could make such a difference, we're falling back into a recession -- where falling back into a recession could happen very easily, a deeper recession, at this very hour to deprive the administration, the congress, the people who care so much about community banks and small businesses i think would be a -- a huge mistake, mr. president. so i urge my colleagues to reject the thune amendment. and, again, the commitments have been made, these resources are to go to one of four areas, primarily to community banks to get credit flowing and to small business but also to mitigate foreclosures and to address the deepening crisis in the commercial mortgage loans, which are there.

and so we have a pool of resources to respond to it. my hope, of course, is that all of these dollars are going to be paid back with interest, as i think there's some evidence, as we've seen already, may, in fact, occur. but we need to continue on this path if we're going to succeed in these efforts to watching optimism and confidence be restored to main street in america. and this is one opportunity for us to do it, to get this job done. and i urge my colleagues to vote against the thune amendment. for all the reasons we have in the past, this is not a new amendment. it's been offered in the past and it's been rejected by our colleagues here for many of the same reasons i've tried to articulate this afternoon. the arguments haven't changed. when has is the dedication of these resources exactly to the areas that so many of us have talked about over these last number of months. so, mr. president, i urge rejection of that amendment. mr. president, if i may, i wanted to switch the subject matter, if i could, to the subject matter of -- of haiti and the events of the last week that have occurred in that -- in

that country. and as i mentioned, my interest in the subject matter is not any different than that of every single person who'd watched with horror -- who's watched with horror the photographs, the pictures, the stories of the tragedy that's afflicted that poor, desperate country that occupies one-third of the island of piss span oh la. bula -- of hispanola. but i bring attention to them because i have friends, and i've had them for 40 years, on the island nation of haiti. i've been there on numerous occasions over the years. in addition to my first introduction to haiti at the age of 22 years of age as a peace corps volunteer when i was sent to a small village on the border of haiti on the deminimum can republic in 1966 -- on the dominican republic in 1966, some 40 years ago. so my interest and friendships go back a long time and i'm deeply occurred and worried about what's occurring there and what steps we might take as a nation in conjunction with others to provide some help to a people who are in desperate need of it. so i rise to talk about the tragic situation, mr. president, the humanitarian disaster that

has occurred in the wake of last week's earthquake and the u.s. led response to this crisis. last tuesday, as we all know, as the world knows, one of the largest earthquakes recorded in the area hit about 15 miles from the capital city of port-au-prince in haiti. this massive quake brought immediate destruction to part >> prince and surrounding areas a and -- positive port-au-prince and surrounding areas and communities. instantly destroying roads and seaports, cutting power and water lines throughout the country. most tragically, mr. president, the earthquake has killed tens of thousands of haitians who at the time the quake struck were simply going about their daily lives, desperate lives, i might add, but daily lives. the government of haiti has indicated that they believe 70,000 of their fellow citizens have been killed in this earthquake. other officials fear the death toll may be as high or more than 200,000 people as a result of those 15 seconds that caused that nation's state to crumble. these hear heart-wrenching numbo

not even account for those injured, that are homeless, the orphaned without food, water, shelter or any kind of medicine. and the losses extend well beyond haitians. the united states also lost a dedicated public servant named victoria delong, who was serving as the cultural affairs officer at our embassy in port-au-prince. several more americans have been killed and many more remain unaccounted for a week later. the united nations, no stranger to dangerous and difficult missions, has suffered its single greatest loss of life in the history of the united nations. over 100 united nations staffers and peacekeepers remain unaccounted for and the special representative for haiti, heidi anambi, also lost his life. on behalf of my colleagues here, mr. president, in the united states senate, i want to extend our heartfelt condolences to the friends and the families of those who have lost their lives in haiti. and they should know that you

are in our thoughts and prayers every single minute of every day. this earthquake has been called a disaster of epic proportions, and when such a disaster strikes one of our neighbors, a country so close to many of us, our nation responds, as have others. i applaud president obama, secretary clinton, and administrator shaw for their immediate, robust and coordinated efforts which has truly been a whole government response, utilizing resources, skills, expertise of our state department, usaid, the defense department. secretary gates deserve great commendation. our forces in uniform that poured into the area on a moment's notice to help out, as they always do, deserve particular recognition in this effort. we have deployed thousands of troops to haiti who are supporting operations at the port-au-prince airport, working to provide logistical support, open up the port in port-au-prince. the u.s. has sent an aircraft carrier with numerous helicopters to deliver aid to

otherwise hard-to-reach places in and around port-au-prince. a hospital ship to provide lifesaving medical care and urban search-and-rescue teams and doctors to help rescue those trapped and treat those who are injured. in addition to manpower, the united states has plenled money and -- pledged money and supplies, including water, ready-to-eat meals, medicine to help those in need. this response has demonstrated the generosity and spirit of the american people, especially when it comes to helping others who are in desperate, desperate ne need, as clearly haiti is. the american people have also responded, as we always do, it's a source of great pride for all of us to watch our fellow citizens, people whose names you'll never know, the denominations which they've given may not sound like much, but for people who've lost a job, lost a home, as i talked about a moment ago during this economic crisis, to reach deep into those almost empty pockets and to send that dollar or $5 or $10 to help out some family

they'll never know, some child they'll never meet in a place they may never go to, may never have known about before, is once again a demonstration of the spirit and the heart of our fellow citizens in the united states of america. aid agencies and n.g.o.'s have reported an outpouring of support as our fellow citizens have donated money, clothing, supplies to hundreds of organizations that operate in haiti today. these donations are absolutely critical at this time. our former presidents, at a time when we can't seem to decide on a bipartisan basis what day of the week it is, to watch president clinton and president bush, two people who have been political opposites, very different points of view, sitting down together as two former leaders of our nation to head up the efforts here to provide relief to haiti is a demonstration i hope of what we ought to be doing together here on occasions that affect our own citizenry. if two former combatants in the

presidential field can sit down and become a team in responding to a crisis in haiti, it ought to be a lesson about what we need to be doing here when it comes to our own crises here at home. so i commend bill clinton, president clinton, and president bush, george w. bush, for the tremendous work. i commend president bush's father, who joined with president clinton back when he saw the tsunami crisis hit southeast asia. the bush family has always responded at times like this and both father and son deserve our thanks and commendation for what they've done. and, of course, bill clinton has dedicated his post-presidency period to a global initiative to help out every single day in places that are not the subject of news stories, as haiti is. and he, of course, deserves our -- our expression of gratitude as well. the international community has responded. over 27 international search-and-rescue teams with some 1,500 rescuers from around the world are already on the ground in port-au-prince and neighboring communities

searching through the rubble to find those who may have survived. and i know my -- i know all of us sit there in absolute stunned admiration for those who have survived six and seven days living in the midst of rubble, to be discovered alive and being extracted by rescue workers. and our only hope is in these waning hours, which one might expect someone to survive under those circumstances, we'll find additional people that somehow miraculously have survived this economic -- this -- this disaster. it's been unbelievable. relief workers, doctors, supplies have arrived from chi china, israel, ice land, brazil -- ice land, brazil, france, more countries than i can enumerate here. the european union has pledged over a half a billion dollars in assistance already and i suspect more will be forthcoming. despite its own tragic losses, the united nations has come to the rescue of the haitian peop people. the united nations stabilization mission in haiti, as it's

called, has responded heroically to this disaster, organizing supply convoys, conducting search-and-rescue missions, and providing security. on saturday, mr. president, the world food program fed 40,000 people, and within the next week or two, that number will increase to 2 million people in the world food program. 2 million people will be fed by that organization. private organizations are also doing heroic and valiant work, including the red cross, doctors without borders, save the children, partners in health -- and let me say particularly on partners in health, my great friend, paul farmer, when has spent years in haiti, as he has in other nations, working with hiv-aids and other issues, is there, as you might expect, in haiti. i've spoken to him the other day about his needs and he has many, mr. president, as you might imagine. he needs orthopedic surgeons, he needs trauma specialists, he needs skilled nurses, he needs supplies. and my hope is in these coming days, coming hours that we'll be

able to get those resources to him. on the ground, the obama administration and the international community are working as quickly as possible to distribute aid to those in need and to help clear the jam of supplies arriving at port-au-prince and cape haitian in some cases in the northern part of the country. it is critical that aid gets distributed beyond the immediate confines of the airport, because those who survived the quake are now trying to survive once again without food and water and medicine and shelter. at the same time, we must work as quickly as possible to ensure that violence does not break o out. as people become desperate to survive, as one might expect under these circumstances, the people of haiti are our neighbors and it is our duty to help them weather this storm, as others are doing as well. i strongly agree with secretary clinton, who during her trip to haiti this past saturday, affirmed to the haitian people that we will be here today, tomorrow, and for the time ahead as well.

so, mr. president, i want to take a few minutes to describe what i believe needs to happen in this time ahead of us that secretary clinton referred to. and these aren't all of the suggestions. i know there are many others that are coming in that we need to think about how we can intelligently respond to this. we can't do it all alone. we need help, obviously, from the international community. but there are some steps that we can take that i think would make some difference in all of this. we must understand where haiti was the day before the earthquake struck. despite its location only a few hundred miles from the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind, haiti is the -- or not "the" but one of the top two or three poorest nations on the face of this earth. it ranks as the poorest country in the western hemisphere with 80% of the population living under the poverty lines of this hemisphere. and while in recent years they showed some positive trends in economic growth, the 208 hurricanes that devastated that

country and caused widespread destruction and severely destroying the agricultural sector. remittances to haiti represented nearly twice the earnings from exports and accounted for a quarter of the gross domestic product of that nation. haiti has also one of the life expectancies of the world. the average haitian income is less than $1 a day in terms of income, less than $1 a day. clearly haiti had a lot of ground to cover before this earthquake struck and rebuilding haiti is not going to be easy for anyone. many have debated why haiti remains so poor and what can be done to alleviate poverty and improve public health outcomes and help them develop an equitable way forward. the debate is all the more important and necessary as we move forward. as chairman of the subcommittee on the western hemisphere, and as an american who knows and cares about haiti, having spent so many of my formative years in that country, i am committed to finding the best solutions to

these vexing problems and to working in close coordination with the administration, the united nations and our neighbors in the region including brazil, mexico, and others who are already there helping to rebuild haiti. i might mention there are 400 physicians from the island of cuba who are operating in haiti today, down there trying to make a difference. whatever thought people have about the government of cuba, the fact is there are doctors now of that nation that are now down trying to save lives. as we begin to transition from a rescue mission it a medium- and long-term recovery mission, we must think creatively and a lo indicate resources to the most efficient methods to help construction and redevelopment. we must work to forgive haitian debt. in april of this past year haiti was added to the i.m.f. and world bank's list of heavily indebted poor country initiative. i'm sure there's an acronym for

that. i don't no whati don't know what that's what it is. this is an auspicious start but one that we must build upon. public insecurity has long been a systemic problem, hampering economic growth. therefore, it's critical that we work with the haitian authorities in that nation and others to build and reform the institutions to bolster the rule of law in haiti that will be necessary to lift haitians out of poverty, rebuild the country and atract and maintain foreign direct investment to jump-start that nation's economy. throughout this process, we must not get bogged down by old formulas and hardened ways of doing business as usual. we must think outside the box, as the expression goes, marshal the next resources and creativity of our friends from the region. and the haitian people must devise and be a part of a medi medium- and long-term strategy nor this effort. to that end, senator lugar and i of indiana be, the former

chairman of the committee, will be introducing legislation shortlyal in help to speed haiti's recovery by instructing the secretary of the treasury to work with other nations and to relieve haiti of their outstanding international debt, including the debt incurred through 2011. that ought to be something that every nation agrees to do. in the absence of which i don't know how you can ever talk about economic recovery to saddle a country that doesn't have a government today to meet those obligations. our legislation will help to spur economic activity which is essential if we're going to have any kind of a recovery process. we will do so by promoting trade between the united states and haiti and lifting any restrictions, any barriers so that trade will be able to flow between haiti and the united states, putting people to work. the haitian people have endured immeasurable suffering in recent days but their spirit is indomitable. haitians came together to observe mass amid the ruins of port-au-prince.

their future may have been tested but it is far from broken. i stand committed, as i'm sure our colleagues throughout this chamber will as will, to working with them. our fell lee citizens here at home, the international community, not just today but in the weeks and months and even years ahead to ensure that our commitment in helping haiti to recover is meaningful, sustainable, and rises to the great challenge that we face. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask consent that further call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a vote in relation to the thune amendment number 3301 and that the provisions of the order of december 22 regarding vote threshold remain in effect and no intervening amendment in

order. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? yes, there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: anyone wishing to vote or change his or her vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 53, the nays are 45. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is withdrawn. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: mr. president, i know there is a lot of activity up there. i wonder if we might vitiate the quorum call. the presiding offitcer: ibjecti. mr. corker: outstanding job. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. corker: mr. president, i rise to speak about the gregg-conrad bill that i hope

we'll vote on later this evening or maybe tomorrow. i know that everybody in this body is concerned greatly about the long-term issues that we have to deal with as it relates to our deficits. i think everybody in this body has concerns about that. mr. president, i know that there have been a lot of discussion especially by members of the finance committee that we need to deal with the long-term deficits that we have in this body through regular order, and the fact is that this is the responsibility of a committee, and i respect members of the finance committee, someday would like to serve on that committee. i think they do outstanding work. but, mr. president, i think all of us realize that there is no way that we are going to deal with the long-term issues relating to social security and medicare without doing something that causes us to have to take a vote. now, a lot of people have criticized the gregg-conrad bill, saying that there is a

possibility that one of the recommendations that may come forth from this commission that would actually make its report and cause us to vote after november of this next -- of this year, one of the things that people have said is that there may be a tax increase that's recommended in this legislation. mr. president, i'd like to say that all setting up the gregg-conrad bill would do would be to get republicans and democrats to agree on a way to deal with their long-term issues. it doesn't commit people to have to vote for those recommendations. as a matter of fact, there is nothing in this bill that speaks to tax increases. mr. president, i know on the other side of this, we have some some -- some more liberal groups, if you will, that are saying look, we don't want you to deal with entitlements because the only way to make entitlements whole may mean making some reforms, and we don't want any changes in that. so, mr. president, what we have is we have people on both ends of the spectrum that are saying don't support gregg-conrad when

everybody in this body knows we cannot continue as we are today. we all know that. mr. president, the finance committee who i respect greatly just in this last health care bill -- and i'm not trying to touch a subject that may be sort of hard for all of us after the last couple of days, but the fact of the matter is the finance committee proposed taking $464 billion in savings from medicare to use that to create a new entitlement. mr. president, what that means is the finance committee has no notion whatsoever of doing things to make medicare more solvent over the long haul. if we're going to take savings like that, we ought to make medicare more solvent. so, mr. president -- by the way, we can debate those kinds of things, but the fact is that the finance committee has had decades to deal with the long-term entitlement issues. i respect -- the fact is that

during regular order, it's very difficult for this body to make the tough decisions that calls us to make sure that we're not pushing huge amounts of debt on to future generations. so, mr. president, i can't imagine why anybody in this body can oppose setting up a bipartisan group. you don't have to vote for the recommendations. it would spend a year looking at these issues in an intelligent fashion, hopefully, and then coming back and reporting, and you can vote yes or no. you may or may not like them. i see the senator from missouri. let me just say one more thing. mr. president, the way i understand it is the majority leader would appoint the democrats, the minority leader is going to appoint the republicans. that alone ought to give people some sense that they're not going to appoint people that are out in left field, if you will,

or out in right field as it relates to fiscal issues. they're going to appoint people that want to look at this generally along the lines of the philosophy of each of the two bodies -- each of the two parties. so, mr. president, i cannot understand how any of us cannot support putting in place something that everybody in america knows putting in place a mechanism to deal with the long-term liabilities of this country. mr. president, i know that you join me in those concerns, you have to. the senator from missouri has to join me in those concerns, and i hope that what we'll do is set aside politics and the groups that are calling in and lobbying against this because we might have to make a tough decision, which by the way would benefit future generations, trying to keep us from doing something that would make sense again. if the things that they recommend are not good, vote against it, but let's put some

process in place to deal appropriately to make sure that seniors down the road are going to have medicare. that seniors down the road are going to have social security, and those young people that we talk about so much and care osha about aren't burdened with huge amounts of debt because we don't have the courage in this body to make the decisions that we need to make to make this country on solid footing. we all know that, we see it every day. we don't want to make those tough decisions. this gives us the ability to have a mechanism to at least consider making some difficult decisions to put this country on a strong footing. mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: would the senator withhold his quorum call? the senator from missouri. mrs. comoofl: i had no intention on speaking today, but this

place has been a little strange over the last few months in terms of our ability to come together. when i heard my friend from tennessee talking about the conrad-gregg amendment, i realized we -- mrs. mccaskill. mrs. mccaskill: i wanted to stop and just recognize that, that it's not completely gone. there are republicans and democrats that agree on things. i couldn't agree more with my friend from tennessee. this statutory commission, i think, is our best hope at restoring fiscal sanity in this country. i think it is important that we pass it. i'm proud to be a cosponsor of it. there are a number of us on this side of the aisle that are cosponsors of the amendment. there are a number of republicans that are cosponsors. but i'm beginning to sense that there may be some political game playing that's going to occur here, and it worries me. the leader, with all due respect -- i had a bipartisan

moment, i will backtrack a little bit. i remember the republican party announcing this was one of their priorities, and now all of a sudden we're hearing that the leader of the republican party is opposed to it. now, think about that for a minute. before the shores got rocky for democrats politically, this was a great idea. everybody here knows we're not going to fix this problem in regular order. everybody knows it. it's not going to happen. so we're going to talk deficits, we're going to continue to say deficits matter, and we're not going to do the things we've got to do to fix it. and until people begin to put aside politics and think about the policy that's really involved here and what it means for the future of this country, we're in deep trouble. and so i imemployer my friend from tennessee to restore this as one of the priorities of the republican caucus, to prevail

upon your leader to not -- i hope this isn't the case, but the rumors are floating around that they have backed off of this as a priority because if the democrats do this, it's going to make them look good. we've got to quit making the failure of the other guys our success. a senator: mr. president? mrs. mccaskill: this place can't be about that. by the way, it happens on both sides. i'm not saying that this is just a problem on the republican side of the aisle, but we really do have a place where the politics the way it's played today make it very difficult for us to come together in a bipartisan fashion , and this is a moment, this is a moment in time that this could happen, and i -- i imemployer my friend from -- i implore my friend from tennessee, and he is my friend. we have been here the same amount of time. we have watched all of this sometimes wowr eyes bugging out and our jaws slack as to what's going on around here and how things work. this is a time that we can come

together and do something that's responsible for this country, and i'm going to work very hard. my colleagues on this side of the aisle, i hope my friend from tennessee does the same thing on his side of the aisle. i think we'll have a vote on this sometime in the next week or so, and i think it's really important that we stand up and be counted as people that are more worried about our grandchildren than the next election. thank you, mr. president. mr. corker: the senator from missouri and i have worked on a number of things together, and i so much appreciate her comments, and while i certainly cannot speak to what the position may be of leadership of whatever party and this particular issue, i will tell you i am absolutely a cosponsor and i absolutely agree that political winds are blowing, i might add on both sides of the aisle. you know, the president tried to announce something yesterday that we all know is not as strong as this and it was an attempt in fairness to keep this from gaining support because this is, as you mentioned,

statutory. so it happens on both sides of the aisle. i'm proud of the fact that the senator from missouri is standing up today supporting this piece of legislation. i support it proudly. i cannot imagine -- and again, the winds are blowing on both sides. i know there are groups, liberal groups calling in, trying to get folks on the other side not to vote for it. we have conservative groups on our side calling, trying to get people not to vote for it. again, all we're doing is putting in place a mechanism to try to solve this problem and people can vote against the recommendations. at the very least, we would be benefited from some deep thought and a lot of work on data to see where we really sit as it relates to the deficit issues. but listen, the election the other night, i don't -- one of the things i think it said to both of us is that regardless of the outcome, regardless of some of the issues that we're focused

on, i think the american people would like for us to hit issues head on. they don't want trickery, they don't want double talk. i think the american people would like for us to address the serious issues of this country as adults and try to come forthwith real solutions to everyday problems and long-term problems, and i think this piece of legislation which, by the way, is bipartisan and as you have mentioned in the past has had tremendous story. i think we almost had enough -- i'm probably exaggerating slightly. we almost had enough sponsors in the past to pass it in this body, and now as you mentioned the bill winds are changing. instead of looking at this for the substance that is there and behind it, you're right,

politics have come into play. i hope just as you have mentioned that all of us can rise up above that over this next week and support this very commonsense piece of legislation that at least would get the ball rolling towards dealing with the issues that are going to affect these young people that are here helping us. we all know we as political leadership or at least for years -- and i'm not talking about just today. for years, we have had the most selfish generation of political leadership this country has seen kicking the can down the road on serious issues so that we can give people what they want without anybody having to pay for it except for these young people. i'm proud to stand with the senator from missouri. i thank her for her comments. mr. president, thank you for the courtesy of time, and again, i notice the absence of a quorum but possibly the senator from north dakota may wish to speak. mr. dorgan: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator will withdraw his -- withhold his quorum call? mr. corker: as always. mr. dorgan: i support the conrad-gregg resolution. i will vote for it. i do so not because i think it's the best resolution. the best resolution would be for us year to year to reconcile what we spend and the amount of money that we have to spend, but we don't do that. we're now in a position where we have an unsustainable fiscal policy. it just is. and i know that people on that side want to blame this add many. people on this -- blame this administration. people on this side want to blame the last eight years. whatever the blame may be, let me just say we are on an unsustainable course and it is required in my judgment by republicans and democrats to come together to find a way to address it. this is not the best way but it is probably the only way that we're ever going to get some control here. now, i -- you know, i -- it is easy for me as well, because i've heard so many people come to the floor to say this administration is a socialist administration, going to spend this country into the ground.

you know, i've heard all that. it's easy for me to stand here and go all the way back to a time when i stood on this floor, at a time when we had the only budget surplus in several decades and say, in response to a president's proposal, let's spend it before it even exists. all we had was ten years of projections. and i said, why don't we be conservative? these surpluses only exist this year but not for the next ten yet. let's be a little conservative. and the blowback was, kati bar the door, let's do big tax cuts, let's do all these things. and then immediately -- and i didn't vote for it -- immediately we ran into a recession, then we ran into a -- a terrorist attack, then war in afghanistan, a war in iraq. and, by the way, we never paid for a penny. we just sent men and women to go to war and said we won't pay for it, emergency appropriations every single year. there is plenty of blame to go. this guy -- this current

president, president barack obama, has been in office just one year. i -- there are things i disagree with this administration for sure, but, look, he inherited the biggest mess in the history of a presidency, in my judgment. so let's try to figure out how we can get the best of what both parties have to offer this country rather than the worst of each. i have often quoted augden gnashnashwho i think probably ir lines always captures the best. and he was talking about a guy who drinks too much and a woman who scolds. he driz because she scold, he thinks. he's a drink and she's a shrew. and so it is perhaps wha with te political parties. neither will admit what's really true. both have some responsibility here and both have a responsibility to lead. now, we are not leading year to year in the normal budget process, in the normal appropriations process to reconcile the amount of money we have and the needs that exist. we're not reconciling that.

we are offing a level of government that exceeds the amount of money that we have. exceeds the american people's willingness or ability to pay for it and that is not sustainable in the long item for this country. so -- long-term for this country. so the question is, what do we do. some people will say, well, you can't ever increase taxes. and i say, well, why not, if you've got people who aren't paying their fair share, how about increasing taxes on them? some of the biggest folks in this country that have been running hedge funds are paying the lowest tax rates in america. how would you like to make $3 billion in a year and, by the way, when somebody comes home and says, "honey, how you doing?" that person says well, i'm doing pretty well. $ billion a year. that's almost -- $3 billion a year. that's almost, what, $25 $250 million a month salary. i'm doing pretty well. and by the way, i don't know whether you know it, sweetheart, but i get to pay the lowest taxes in the country. i get to pay uncarried interest, the tax rate of 15%. so if somebody says, what's the solution to this? cutting spending? yep, i think so.

areas where we're spending money that we shouldn't. by the way, beaming television signals into the country of cuba. we've spent a quarter of a billion dollars sending television signals to the cuban people in tv marti. yes, we have spent that. and they are television signals that are beamed from 3:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and blocked by the cuban government so nobody can see them. so we've spent a quarter of a billion dollars sending television signals no one can see. i guess some people feel better about that. i've been trying to shut that down for ten years and can't even shut down that kind of insanity. so cutting spending? yes. how about asking those that aren't paying their fair share of taxes? yes. let's do all of that. and perhaps we are requiring that that be done if we set up this mechanism. perhaps that's what will happen. i wish we didn't have to do this, but do you know what? with the choice of yes or no, which is a very simple choice, should we do something or should we just continue down this bumpy road that leads to a destination none of us want and none of our

children will like? my answer is let's vote yes on this resolution, let's decide to do something that maybe can put this country back on track, help us restart this economic engine and give the american people confidence again. i used to teach a little economics in college, and i used to teach that it didn't matter what the supply and demand curve and all those issues dealt with, with the graphs. what really matters is do people have confidence about the futu future, about themselves and their family and the future? if they do, they do the things that expand the economy: take a trip, buy a suit of clothes, buy a car, buy a home. that's what expands the economy. and if they are not confident, they do exactly the opposite and they contract this economy. let's do some things here that give people some confidence in the future. let's give them confidence that finally, at last, at long, long last, we're going to grab these issues, look them square in the eye and say, "we'll fix them." why? because our kids and our grandkids deserve that and this country deserves that leadership. mr. president, i yield the

floor. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to proceed as if in morning business for up to 12 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, yesterday the senate homeland security committee heard testimony from the three top u.s. intelligence officials about the errors that the federal government made leading up to the thwarted christmas day plot. we dodged a bullet that day when omar faroke a e e e abdul matoa nigerian-born terrorist, failed to detonate a bomb on flight 253 in the skies above detroit. but today, mr. president, i rise

to discuss an error that was made after that foreign terrorist had already been detained by american authorities in detroit, an error that may well have prevented the collection of valuable intelligence about future terrorist threats to our country. that error became clear during my questioning of three of our nation's top intelligence officials at the committee's hearing yesterday. frankly, mr. president, i was stunned to learn that the decision to place the captured terrorist into the u.s. civilian criminal court system had been made without any input or the knowledge of the director of

national intelligence, the director of national counterterrorism center, or the secretary of the department of homeland security. that's right, mr. president. these officials were never consulted by the department of justice before the decision was made. and that decision, mr. president, was critical. the determination to charge abdul mutallah in civilian court likely foreclosed the collection of additional intelligence information. we know that the interrogation of terrorists can provide critical intelligence. but our civilian justice system as opposed to the military justice and tribunal system established by congress and the

president encourages terrorists to lawyer up and to stop answering questions. and, indeed, that was exactly what happened in the case of abdul mutallah. he had provided some valuable information to law enforcement officials in the hours immediately after his capture, and we surely would have obtained more information if we had treated this foreign terrorist as an enemy belligerent and had placed him in the military tribunal system. instead, once he was read his miranda rights, given a lawyer at our expense, he was advised to cease answering questions and that's exactly what he did. that poor decision making may

well have prevented us from finding out more of yemen's role in training terrorists and more about future plots that are underway in yemen targeting american citizens, in this country or abroad. good intelligence is clearly critical to our ability to stop terrorist plots before they are executed. we know that lawful interrogations of terrorist suspects can provide important intelligence. to charge abdulmutallab in the civilian criminal system without even consulting three of our nation's top intelligence officials simply defies commonsense. to correct this failure and to

ensure that our nation's senior intelligence officials are consulted before making the decision to try future foreign terrorists in civilian court, i am today introducing a bill that would require this crucial consultation. i'm very pleased to be joined by the chairman of the homeland security committee, senator lieberman, who's been such a leader in this entire area, as well as by two other very valuable members of our committee who are also concerned about the testimony yesterday, senator bob bennett and senator john ensign. specifically, our bill would require the attorney general to consult with the director of national intelligence, the director of the national counterterrorism center, the

secretary of homeland security and the secretary of defense before initiating a custodial interrogation of foreign terrorists or filing civil -- civilian criminal charges against them. these officials, mr. president, are in the best position to know what other threats the united states is facing from terrorists and to assess the need to gather more intelligence on those threats. if there is a disagreement between the attorney general and these intelligence officials regarding the appropriate approach to the detention and interrogation of foreign terrorists, then the bill would require the president to resolve the disagreement. only the president would be permitted to direct the

initiation of civilian law enforcement actions, balancing his constitutional responsibilities as commander in chief and as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. to be clear, this legislation would not deprive the president of any investigative or prosecutorial tool. it would not preclude a decision to charge a foreign terrorist in our military tribunal system or in our civilian criminal justice system. it would simply require that the attorney general coordinate and consult with our top intelligence officials before making a decision that could foreclose the collection of critical additional intelligence information.

this consultation requirement is not unprecedented. section 811 of the counterintelligence and security enhancements act of 1994 requires the director of the f.b.i. and the head of a department or agency with a potential spy in its ranks to consult and periodically reassess any decision to leave the suspected spy in place so that additional intelligence can be gathered on his activities. as the senate intelligence committee noted in its report on the legislation that added the espionage consultation requirement, while prosecutorial discretion ultimately rests with the department of justice officials, it stands to reason that in cases designed to

protect our national security, such as espionage and terrorism cases, prosecutors should ensure that they do not make decisions that in fact end up harming the national security. the committee got it right. the committee went on to explain -- quote -- "the determination of whether to leave a subject in place should be retained by the host agency." mr. president, the history of the espionage consultation requirement is eerily reminiscent of the lack of consultation that occurred in the case of abdul abdulmutallab. congress already has recognized that when valuable intelligence is at stake in espionage cases, our national security should

trump decisions based solely on prosecutorial equities. this requirement must be extended to the most significant threat facing our nation, and that is the threat of terrorism. i encourage the senate to act quickly on this important legislation. the changes proposed are modest. they make common sense. but the consequences could be a matter of life and death. thank you, mr. president. i would send the legislation to the desk and ask that it be appropriately referred. the presiding officer: the measure will be received and appropriately referred. clnmrs. collins: thank you,

mr. president. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. brownback: i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brownback: i rise to speak on the budget deficit and a mechanism that this body has embraced in two prior budget agreements that i think is time to put into place now. it's called the karfa -- carfa

mechanism. it is a brac process on spending. and we passed it in a budget resolution twice with votes on both sides of the aisle for it. and what it does is it basically says we've got to look at all federal government, places that aren't working we need to eliminate. and the rest then we can use to pay down on our debt and deficit. if ever there was a time to do this, this is the time. i've argued for a decade we needed to do this, and i've put this bill forward for a decade. and this is my last year in the senate, and i hope we can get it done this year. it is -- it has received bipartisan votes, as i mentioned two times before in the budget. it's a simple mechanism. it has an eight-member commission, four appointed by each side of the house and the senate. it has to pass by six of the

members of the eight, have to vote to put forward the recommendations of the commission. it takes a fourth of the federal government each year and it recommends spending cuts in that fourth. that is then referred to the appropriate committees, and then within 30 days after the commission reports out is subject to a privilege motion that the actual recommendations of the commission must be voted on by congress. it then has a limited time frame for debate without amendment and you get a vote up or down. very similar to the brac process we've followed for many years for base closing and realignment. i might remind my colleagues, that brac process, while creating consternation across the country, has saved us $60 billion. through that process. we've had several placeness kansas that have been closed in tpha* that process but we've had consolidation of troops and operation at, say, fort riley that have gained by that. and we have an economy and a better aligned military.

this is the same process. it is only on spending. it isn't on taxes. and it is applied now to the full breadth of the government, discretionary and mandatory spending. it is everything included within the brac process. it is a supermajority within the commission itself. six of eight members must sign ton it so you can't get it one way or the other. it is a simple majority under the bodies under the privilege motion. it is a 50 plus one vote to be able to get it through this body and a majority in the house. this is a tried and true practice. it doesn't include tax increases, which my other colleagues that are putting forward a commission process as well, but does include tax increases, which a number of people have a great deal of difficulty with and certainly people across the country have a great deval difficulty with. this is not the time across the country to be talking about tax increases. i think clearly the people are

saying no new tax increases. i think they certainly would say that prior to us going through our own spending. there is nothing that prevents this body from passing a tax increase. they can pass it at any point in time. but i think to have any validity, you would to go through the federal spending first and say let's cut the spending before we look at the tax increase side of the equation. that's what this does. this looks at the spending piece of the equation, not at the tax piece of the equation. we owe that to the american people. if there is going to be any credibility of saying we need to raise taxes -- which i don't think we need to -- pw*u you have to first go through federal spending and say we cleaned out everything we can. i believe there are a number of federal agencies that would take a major reduction and we could end up with better government. this is a report card that the federal government does on itself on the effectiveness of its programs given the design that they were passed in the congress. and the o.m.b. does this.

this do this on an annual basis. they take different agencies each year and rate them for total effectiveness of that program. you can see we've got a couple of agencies here -- if you have got a 100-point score card. the best one we do is state department gets a 79.47 grade average. we've got education department at 49.491. labor department, 58.14 of an average score, grade average of the programs reviewed within that agency, within labor 35 and education 93. my point in saying that my guess is within these 35 programs we could find quite a few there that actually should be eliminated, that are not hitting the target, that are not getting the job done. and this is the process we went through with military bases. for instance, in my state and some other places we had a munition plant closed down near parsons kansas. we had a munitions center near

kansas city that was closed down. these plants were providing services, doing legitimate functions for the military. but the military said we can consolidate this in one place and save money and close these plants down and then we'll turn the land back toefr private and -- over to private and public entities. and that's what's taking place. we've done that across the country creating a more efficient military installation process. i've not had -- it might have had a negative impact in a couple of my communities but now we're working hard on those issues. but we've got a better structured military. what if we did that in the rest of the federal government? we clearly should do that at this point in time where you're looking at a federal deficit, government running a federal deficit of $1.472 trillion, 1616% greater than the 12-month period ending december 31 of 2008. i've asked my colleagues to

consider this amendment in the budget -- in the federal debt limit ceiling, for us to go back to this process that has already passed this body in budget votes before but we've never been able to get a vote that would take it all the way through the system. my colleagues are very familiar with this process. it has worked. let me repeat that: it has worked before for us. it will work again. we're not building from scratch. we already have some score cards. and we've got to start taking care of this thing. this is the legacy, leaving our grandkids deficits that are running in huge quantities. and the first thing you do in a deficit, you dig in a hole. you've got to stop digging it. stop spending. stop spending in the wasteful areas. there's nothing that drives my

constituents more crazy than wasteful government spending. it's just -- phaoepl look at that, and -- people look at that and it is mind-boggling to them. here is a legitimate process to get at wasteful spending in a process that we have approved before, and it is clearly time for us to do it. with this sea of red ink, anybody in this body that's been a governor before has looked at these issues and said first, where can we cut our spending? you would look at that. this does that process. the carfa goes at spending first. that is the first place you would look. you would look there before you go towards any tax increases. i think this is something that the time has come and something this body really should support. i'd also point out the route we're going right now with massive increases in spending

and we've got sharp drops in revenues, you talk about bending cost curves down, let's bend this cost curve down on spending by the federal government. that's what carfa can do in a bipartisan, fair process. it's not just one side or the other saying cut here, cut there. it moves looking at all of the federal government, and it's putting it in a process to where we make recommendations, the commission makes recommendations on spending. spending first. address spending first. and that's clearly what our constituents want us to do. they want us to look at spending. that's not a partisan statement. that's just what the public wants us to do and to get at the wasteful pieces of it first. so i would urge my colleagues in this bill -- i hope we're going to be able to get this up as a piece of it, an amendment, the carfa bill that's been voted on previously, and that we'll have a chance for people to say, yes, let's go at spending. let's go at spending. i

yield the floor. a senator:adtor om montana. mr. baucus: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4462, an act to accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable and cash contributions for the relief of victims of an earthquake in haiti, received from the house and at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4462, an act to accelerate income tax benefits for cash contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in haiti. mr. baucus: madam president, i ask consent that the bill be read three times, passed and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: madam president, this is a, an effort -- and i'm

glad we're passing this bill here now. it already passed the house. to help all those americans that are so -- find the tragedy in haiti so wrenching and want to help. and many americans are trying to help in lots of ways. some are taking orphans in their homes. i worked, for example, the last several days with many churches and organizations, especially the catholic relief society, to just help in any way we possibly can. but there are other americans that want to just help with contributions, with financial contributions. so this amendment just enables many people -- and in my home state of montana, many people contacted me, max, what can we do to help? this is essentially an effort to help people that want to help so they can get a deduction on their 2009 tax returns if that

deduction is made between basically the date of the earthquake -- january 11 -- and march 1. so any contributions made during this period will be tax deductible on the 2009 income tax returns. i'm very happy to work on a bipartisan basis with senators. senator grassley, my counterpart in the finance committee, and i have worked to get this put together, as well as the two senators from florida from both political parties. they care about this. and i know all senators do. i just pay particular thanks to those senators who have been very helpful to get this put together very quickly and passed without any rancor, fuss and so forth. and i'm very grateful. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. kyl: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings on the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: madam president, i wanted to talk a little bit this afternoon about the amendment that senators conrad and gregg have proposed and which we will be voting on next week. both of these senators are very well versed as the chairman and ranking member of the budget committee in fiscal policy and in the types of reforms that everyone is looking for to get a handle on the deficit and the debt that this country is facing and so it is with some trepidation that i oppose an amendment that the two of them would offer. and i hasten to say that both are respected members of this body who approach problems with principle in mind, and in this particular case having talked to senator gregg, i know the idea

that only by working across the aisle with each other and compromising can we hope to deal with the most vexing problem that seems to face this body, and that is how to deal with the problem of deficit and debt. having acknowledged their goodwill, however, i have to respectfully disagree with the approach that they take in their commission, and i do it for basically three reasons. first of all, i have never found either the house or the senate in a position where they were anxious to cut spending and thereby save taxpayer money. i have, on the other hand, seen an effort to raise taxes every time we seem to get into a deficit situation. it seems like it's always easier to gather in more taxpayer money than it is to stop spending

money that they have already sent us, and the problem with that is that it's no longer money that they have sent us, it's money that we have borrowed from other people, like china, for example. and that borrowing has costs, foreign policy costs as well as interest costs, and you eventually have to pay it back. because we have borrowed so much, the chinese are saying they think we better be careful about how much we have borrowed and they are going to have to increase the interest rates, and there is a point at which you cannot be a great nation by being in debt to all the folks around the world, and it's not as if we haven't collected enough taxes. we're now spending something like 23% or 24% of our gross domestic product on federal spending. it used to be 18.5% or so, and it's clear, therefore, that it's not tax revenues that are the problem, it's spending that's gotten out of control. and we know that from all of these statistics that a lot of us have been talking about

relative to the budget last year and the debt ceiling that needs to be raised presumably next week. we wouldn't have to raise the debt ceiling by almost almost $2 trillion if we had been more restrained in our spending. just to put it in perspective before i move on to the next point, the president's budget last year called for more debt in the five-year period of that budget than all of the debt that had been accumulated by every president of the united states from george washington through george bush. think about that for a moment. in 220 years of history, take all of the debt, including world war i, world war ii, the civil war, you pile it all up in this one budget, it included more debt than that. we double the debt in five years, trip it will in ten years. that's not responsible, and it's not for a lack of federal revenues. it's not because we're not taxing the american people enough.

it's because we're spending too much. the american people believe that, they understand it. i think it's one of the messages from the massachusetts election. so when you have a commission that can make recommendations to the congress that we have got to in effect abide by that permit either an increase in taxes or a reduction in spending to solve the problem, it's pretty clear to me which direction we'll end up going in. we don't have the courage to reduce spending so we increase taxes. now, second, our rules here are premised on a fallacy, and unfortunately i believe it will drive the commission because of this fallacy. the fallacy is that all the money in the country belongs to the united states government, and therefore if we reduce taxes somewhere, we have to make up that reduction in tax revenues

somewhere else, either by raising taxes somewhere else or cutting spending, and of course we never cut spending so the idea is you have to raise taxes somewhere. now, if i want to give myself a tax cut or if i want to help give the american people a tax break by reducing their taxes, i should have the right to do that. congress should be making the rules here. we should have the right to say we're going to reduce your tax burden. but under existing rules, unless you have got 60 votes for a permanent change like that, and even then it's difficult because of our scoring rules, any revenue that's lost because of an action we take in reducing taxes has to be made up somewhere else in some other way. it has to be offset. and what that generally means is since we don't find ways to cut spending around here very often, you raise taxes over here to make up for the tax revenue loss over here. if i want to reduce the capital

gains tax by 5%, for example, or give you a real-life example, i want to reduce the estate tax, and senator lincoln and i want to do that, we can't do that without -- quote -- paying for it. we just want to reduce the estate tax so people who die, their heirs won't have to pay as much estate tax. what's the matter with that? no, you can't do it. you have to make up the revenue that that would lose, and it's one of the reasons why we don't cut taxes around here very much because it's hard to find offsetting revenue that is acceptable to people. now, to carry this a little further, senator lincoln and i would simply like to -- well, we would like to repeal the estate tax. that's not going to happen. so we have agreed to a compromise in which we would have a $5 million unified credit. that is to say, that's the amount that is exempt from the tax, and that's per spouse in a family. it would be indexed for

inflation. and then anything that remains above that in the estate would be taxed at the rate of 35%. well, that costs a certain amount of money, according to the budget scorers. i'm not sure how much. let's say $80 billion. let's just say that's how much it costs. so we have to figure out a way to -- quote -- pay for that. so the question is is there some other place where we can raise revenue? and ordinarily, raising revenue means raising taxes. we don't want to do that, so we're relegated to things -- to the kind of political games like maybe phasing it in over time because it doesn't cost as much if you -- if you bring the rates down over time or you gradually increase the unified credit over time. that's how we got to the crazy situation we're at today where we have the rate go down over a period of nine years, and then this year it went to zero, but next year it goes right back up to 55%. so the rules we have around here create crazy policy, and yet

we're stuck with it, and i'm afraid that a commission that has the ability to both make tax revenue increase recommendations as well as spending reductions will not only focus a lot on the taxing side, because it's very hard for congress to -- to reduce spending, but also will be bound by the same rules so that we'll never get tax cuts anymore because every time you want to decrease a particular tax over here, you're going to have to raise taxes over here. i think we should start from the premise that money in the country belongs to the people. it's their property. and the government shouldn't take it unless it needs to and unless the people acquiesce through their representatives. and if congress decides that it wants to take less money from the people, for example, so that they will have more money to invest in small businesses, to

create jobs and put america back to work again, we ought to be able to do that without saying well, we're going to give you a tax break here but we're going to have to raise your taxes by an equivalent amount. if the money belongs to the people, we wouldn't have a rule like that, and i think it is very elitist and very wrong to essentially start with the proposition that the money belongs to washington so that you can never give it back to the people without recouping it in some other way. and so that's the second reason why i think that this is not a good idea. and third, i think we should be focusing on spending reductions. everyone in this body talks about not spending as much, and yet we have increased spending dramatically over the years. one of the reasons why is because our constituents want lots of things, and if a particular special interest asks for some spending, there tends to be a political support for

that, and the opposition to it being spread over all of the people, in effect being everyone's problem, is no one's problem, and so you have in spending bills, for example, members that put earmarks in bills or that request certain spending, and there is a constituency for that. by the way, when i talk about special interests, i'm not necessarily talking about bad people. i mean, every family in america is represented by some special interests. you have some veterans in the family, well, you have got the veterans' groups that are supporting them. does anybody think those are bad special interests? no. if you have farmers, they belong to the farm bureau maybe. that's not a bad special interest, but they may be coming to washington asking for something specifically. i just was visited today by the head of the police department and fire department in my city of phoenix, arizona. both of them are represented by groups here in washington. they're not bad special interests. there are a lot of special interests in the country, and because the government is so big and so powerful, a lot of what

they do consists of persuading washington that it should engage in one policy or another because that's where all the power is, that's where the money is, and so they have to hire lobbyists to come back here. and we listened to those special interests. and who pays the bill? our constituents, the taxpayers. we don't have many representatives back here. oh, there are some organizations. there is groups like the national taxpayers union, for example, that keeps track of how much money we spend around here, and they rate senators based on how much they spend. citizens against government waste is another one. but they are pretty general and they're not specific like a lot of the special interests. so what you end up with is a big push to spend money and not much of a push to save it. and when colleagues of mine like my friend tom coburn from oklahoma or my colleague in arizona john mccain come to

the floor and they criticize earmarks in bills, spending that they don't think is necessary, they're criticized. why don't you play the game here? why are you -- why are you creating such a stir? senator coburn has an amendment that will be -- that we will be taking up next week that says let's at least get rid of a whole group of programs that a commission in the united states has decided are duplicative, are not necessary. i've forgotten how many child nutrition programs we have or special education programs or job training programs. probably many more than can efficiently spend taxpayer money to do the good things that they're set up to do, but we never seem to get around to putting more efficiency into the system. i think it was ronald reagan who said the closest thing to immortality in the united states is a government program. they're easy to create but hard to get rid of. and so when you make deals that

if you'll just -- we're going to solve the deficit problem, will save money over here if you'll save taxes over here. i mefntioned ronald reagan, i will mention him again. that was the deal he cut with tip o'neill and the congress at the time. well, we got the tax increases but we didn't get the savings. one of the things that ronald reagan always said that he regretted was being so naive as to make a deal, assuming that if he agreed to raise taxes over here, that congress would agree to make savings over here. it's just really hard to do. congress very rarely does it. and another problem is that raising taxes for the purpose of raising revenue has two problems with it. number one, we don't end up saving money. we just end up spending it on new things. and number two, it affects behavior from taxpayers in a negative way. if you raise taxes on

businesses, for example, they won't hire as many people. they won't be able to invest as much money in their business. they will probably not make as much money. if they don't make as much money, what happens to their tax liability to the united states government? it goes down, not up. on the other hand, frequently -- and this has been demonstrated especially with taxes that have a direct relationship to revenues like the capital gains tax -- if you reduce the tax, business activity increases, producing more revenue for the government to tax, and federal revenues actually go up. now, this is not true with all taxes, but it is true with some taxes, and i mentioned capital gains. if you have a